From 089cb459a1eb2f91a745be72bca6dbfdaad25fd8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Adam Gohs Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2026 18:31:47 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 1/4] Add the CLE Freezing 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 | 43 +++ .../v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx | 146 ++++++++ .../v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx | 144 ++++++++ .../v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx | 311 ++++++++++++++++++ .../v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx | 216 ++++++++++++ .../v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx | 97 ++++++ .../v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx | 85 +++++ .../v1.0/_input-needed.md | 126 +++++++ src/docConfig.js | 2 +- .../cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/bib.json | 17 + 12 files changed, 1234 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/00-version-history.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx create mode 100644 docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md create mode 100644 static/bibliographies/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/bib.json diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a1fa686d4 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +--- +title: Document Info +reportDate: October 2026 +reportType: Technical Reference +reportTitle: CLE Freezing Screening Technical Reference Manual +reportSubTitle: System Response Library +reportAuthors: ['Adam Gohs, P.E.'] +reportAbstract: Technical reference documenting the concentrated leak erosion (CLE) freezing screening model in the System Response library. The model computes a system response probability (SRP) at each headwater level for concentrated leak erosion through a transverse crack opened at the crest of an embankment by freezing. The probability of a continuous frost crack is scored by risk-factor and likelihood-factor weighting of three site factors — the freeze-duration climate, the soils the crack crosses at the crest, and the surface cover over the core — and an observation of continuous frost cracking overrides it to certainty. The crack depth is taken from the climate, and initiation is certain once the pool rises above the bottom of the crack. The remaining nodes of the eight-node CLE event tree follow the methods shared by the CLE screening family. The model is fully deterministic apart from any Monte Carlo filter evaluation in the continuation node, and applies simplifications appropriate for screening-level risk analysis. +reportSubjectTerms: ['CLE', 'Concentrated Leak Erosion', 'Frost Cracking', 'Freezing', 'Transverse Cracking', 'Crest Crack', 'Screening', 'Event Tree', 'System Response Probability', 'System Response Curve', 'Risk Factor', 'Likelihood Factor'] +citationGuide: 'U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Risk Management Center, CLE Freezing 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-freezing-screening/v1.0/00-version-history.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/00-version-history.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..aadef3853 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-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-freezing-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a2e37e678 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +--- +title: Preface +--- + +import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer'; + + + +# Preface + +This document provides a technical reference for the concentrated leak erosion (CLE) freezing screening model in the System Response library. The +model computes a system response probability (SRP) as a function of headwater elevation for concentrated leak erosion through a transverse crack +opened at the crest of an embankment by freezing (frost cracking). 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 treatment for crest cracks, and +one set of failure-pathway rules. Those shared methods are documented once, in the +[Concentrated Leak Erosion Common Methods Screening Technical Reference Manual](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/preface), +and the continuation node is evaluated by the shared method documented in the +[Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening Technical Reference Manual](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/preface). +This document covers what is specific to frost cracking — the flaw assessment, the crack depth that sets where initiation can begin, the +mechanism-specific inputs, and the assumptions that come with them — and links the chapter of the shared manuals that documents each common step. + +The intended audience includes dam safety engineers evaluating whether the model is appropriate for their assessment, and peer reviewers checking +the technical basis of screening-level results. Readers are assumed to have a general background in internal-erosion risk analysis — event trees, +concentrated leak erosion mechanics, and probability concepts — but no familiarity with the software implementation is required. + +## Document Organization + +- **[Model Overview](./02-model-overview.mdx)** — The model's purpose and intended use, a summary of its execution pathway from inputs to + results, its physics basis, a comparison with detailed analysis, and its relationship to the shared CLE and continuation methods. +- **[Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx)** — The mechanism-specific inputs (the freeze-duration climate, the crest soils, the surface + cover over the core, and the observation of continuous frost cracking), and how this model uses each group of inputs shared with the CLE + family. +- **[Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx)** — The risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring of the three site factors, the weighted-sum + curve and its lower threshold, the observation override, the treatment of crest soils that cannot frost-crack, and the crack depth, bottom of + the crack, and crack width. +- **[Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx)** — How this model populates each of the eight CLE event-tree nodes at each pool level, how the SRP is + computed, and a worked example. +- **[Assumptions and Limitations](./06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx)** — Each assumption specific to this model with its engineering basis, its + effect on results, and the conditions under which it may not hold. +- **[Output and Interpretation](./07-output-and-interpretation.mdx)** — The results the model produces, how to read the system response curve and + the flaw-assessment results, and the role of screening results relative to detailed analysis. diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d4c796571 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,146 @@ +--- +title: Model Overview +--- + +import Citation from '@site/src/components/Citation'; +import CitationFootnote from '@site/src/components/CitationFootnote'; +import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer'; +import TableReference from '@site/src/components/TableReference'; +import TableVertical from '@site/src/components/TableVertical'; + + + +# Model Overview + +## Purpose + +The CLE freezing screening model computes a system response curve for concentrated leak erosion through a frost crack at the crest of an +embankment, as a function of headwater elevation. The system response probability (SRP) at each headwater level is the conditional probability of +breach of the embankment by concentrated leak erosion through such a crack, given that pool level. + +The flaw is a transverse crack — one running across the crest, from the upstream to the downstream side — opened in the crest soils by freezing. It +is open at the crest and extends down to a bottom-of-crack elevation set by the depth of cracking. When the pool rises above the bottom of the crack, +water can flow through it, erode its walls, and enlarge it into a concentrated leak. + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-01 — Definition] +The physical mechanism by which freezing opens a transverse crack at the crest is not described, and neither is the reason each of the model's +three site factors bears on it: why a longer freeze duration, a crest soil of a given classification, and the surface cover over the core +(paved, gravel road, or no road or pathway) make a continuous frost crack more or less likely. State the mechanism and the direction of each factor +so that it can be described here, with a literature source where one applies. + +Proposed (unconfirmed): freezing of the crest soils causes contraction and ice segregation that open transverse cracks, which deepen and widen +with the duration of freezing; fine-grained soils are the most susceptible, and a surface cover that is kept clear of snow, such as a paved road, +changes the insulation of the crest and so the cracking. Confirm, correct, or replace — in particular the direction of the surface-cover factor, +under which a paved crest scores as the least likely condition. +::: + +## Intended Use + +The model is a screening-level assessment of the risk of concentrated leak erosion through a frost crack. It makes simplifying and generally +conservative assumptions with two goals: + +- **Preventing false negatives** — The model aims to avoid underestimating risk at the screening level, so that embankments with a + potential frost-cracking concern are flagged for further analysis. This is a goal rather than a guarantee: the score of an Unknown crest soil is + not the most conservative choice, and a weighted sum below 13 gives a zero raw flaw probability (Assumptions 3 and 4 in + [Assumptions and Limitations](./06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx#flaw-assessment)). Initiation is taken as certain once water can enter the crack, and the most + crack-susceptible of the crest soils governs the flaw assessment. +- **Reducing input burden** — Three qualitative selections — a freeze-duration climate category, the soil classifications at the crest, and the + surface cover over the core — substitute for site-specific measurements of frost penetration and crack geometry. The crack depth follows from + the climate category alone. + +The model is not intended for detailed or semi-quantitative risk assessments. For higher-level analyses, the internal-erosion probability methods of +Fell et al. (2024) and the crack-geometry initiation analyses of the Concentrated Leak Erosion Initiation +toolbox provide the complete methodologies (see [Comparison with Detailed Models](#comparison-with-detailed-models)). + +## How the Model Works + +The model executes the three stages common to the CLE screening family (see the +[Model Overview](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#how-the-model-works) of the common +methods manual): + +1. **Flaw assessment** — The model scores the freeze-duration climate, the most crack-susceptible soil the crack crosses at the crest, and the + surface cover over the core with risk-factor and likelihood-factor weighting, and converts the weighted sum to the probability of a continuous + frost crack. An observation of continuous frost cracking overrides the score to certainty. The climate category also sets the crack depth, and + the bottom of the crack is the crest elevation less that depth. When every listed crest soil is one that cannot frost-crack, the mechanism does + not apply and no crack forms (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx)). + +2. **Pathway resolution** — The model takes the failure pathway as supplied: the top of the first filter the crack meets, if any, the filter and + base-soil description, the soils that must hold a roof over the enlarging pipe below and above the filter's top, the embankment type, and the + upstream seepage-limiting elements with the top of any wall (see [Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#inputs-shared-with-the-cle-family)). + +3. **Event-tree assembly** — At each headwater level, the model composes the eight CLE event-tree node probabilities and multiplies them to produce + the SRP. Initiation is zero at or below the bottom of the crack and certain above it; continuation, roof support, and flow limitation are each + evaluated for the pathway that governs at that pool level (see [Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx)). + +Every node is deterministic except continuation, which the shared continuation method evaluates by Monte Carlo simulation when it assesses a +filter from the soil classifications of the base and filter soils. + +## Physics Basis + +The model combines the following engineering methods: + +- **Risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring** of the probability of a continuous flaw, in which each site factor receives a likelihood factor + weighted by a risk factor and the weighted sum is mapped to a probability , as documented for the CLE family + in [Flaw Conventions](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#risk-factor-and-likelihood-factor-scoring) +- **A climate-dependent crack depth** that places the bottom of the frost crack below the crest (see + [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#crack-depth-and-bottom-of-the-crack)) +- **A headwater gate at the bottom of the open crack** for initiation, as documented for the crest-crack models in + [Initiation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#crest-crack-models-headwater-gate) +- **Filter evaluation, roof-support, crack-filling, and flow-limitation probabilities** for continuation and progression, applied through the + crest-crack pathway rules documented in + [Failure Pathway and Progression](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression) + +## Comparison with Detailed Models + +In a detailed risk analysis, the probability of a frost crack, its depth and width, and the likelihood that erosion initiates in it are assessed by +the risk team from the site evidence, informed by the internal-erosion probability methods of Fell et al. (2024) . +The initiation of erosion in a crack of known geometry can be evaluated with the +[Vertical Rectangular Crack](/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/concentrated-leak-erosion-initiation/v1.0/vertical-rectangular-crack) +and [Vertical Triangular Crack](/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/concentrated-leak-erosion-initiation/v1.0/vertical-triangular-crack) +analyses of the Concentrated Leak Erosion Initiation toolbox, which compare the hydraulic shear stress in the crack with the critical shear stress +of its walls. summarizes the differences. + + + +## Relationship to the Shared Methods + +The model is one of the four crest-crack models of the CLE screening family (see +[The Two Model Groups](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#the-two-model-groups) in the +common methods manual). Everything after the flaw assessment is common to those models: the event-tree structure, the headwater gate for +initiation, the crest-crack pathway rules for continuation and roof support, the crack-filling and flow-limitation tables, and the form of the +results. This manual documents the frost-cracking flaw assessment in full and, for every other node, states what this model supplies and links the +chapter of the common methods manual that documents the method. The continuation node hands the filter evaluation to the shared continuation method, +which combines its results across the base soils the filter protects as described in +[Method Selection and Governing Base Soil](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/method-selection-and-governing-base-soil). +The model uses no toolbox method. + +The closest sibling is the desiccation screening model, which shares the structure of the flaw assessment — three factors, a weighted-sum +threshold of 13, an observation override, and a set of crest soils in which the mechanism cannot occur. It also scores the climate and the crest +soil, but on its own tables and with its factors weighted differently: its surface layer carries a risk factor of 3, its climate 2, and its crest +soil 1. + + diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9566be83f --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,144 @@ +--- +title: Input Parameters +--- + +import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer'; +import TableReference from '@site/src/components/TableReference'; +import TableVertical from '@site/src/components/TableVertical'; + + + +# Input Parameters + +The model takes two groups of inputs. The **frost-cracking inputs** describe the flaw: the freeze-duration climate, the soils the crack would cross +at the crest, the surface cover over the core, and whether continuous frost cracking has been observed. The **shared inputs** — hydraulic loading, +the crest elevation and embankment type, the failure-pathway inputs, the upstream seepage-limiting elements, and the intervention and breach +probabilities — are common to the CLE screening family and are documented in +[Common Input Parameters](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters) of the common methods +manual; this chapter states only how this model uses them. The model takes no critical shear stress, initial opening, seepage path length, or +embankment cross-section input, because its initiation node involves no shear stress analysis. + +## Frost-Cracking Inputs + + + +### Freeze-duration climate + +The climate category describes the duration of below-freezing conditions at the site. It sets the climate likelihood factor, the most heavily +weighted of the three flaw factors, and the depth of the crack (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#climate)). The choices are: + +- **Sub-arctic or alpine, below freezing three months or more** — the longest freeze duration; the most likely condition for a frost crack and the + deepest crack. +- **Sub-arctic or alpine, below freezing one to three months** +- **Temperate, below freezing up to a month** +- **Above freezing, except possibly overnight for a couple of days** — the least likely condition and the shallowest crack. + +The climate has no Unknown category; one of the four must be selected. + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-02 — Definition] +The quantity against which "below freezing" and its duration are judged is not stated — for example the mean daily air temperature, the daily +minimum, or the ground temperature at the crest — nor how the duration is counted (continuous period or cumulative days in a typical or a severe +winter). State the criterion the user should apply to place a site in one of the four climate categories, citing the source of the categories in +Fell et al. (2024) if they are defined there. +::: + +### Crest soil classifications + +The crest soil classifications are the soil classes, in the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), of every material other than drain or filter +material that the crack would cross at the crest. Each is one of the fifteen USCS classes listed in +[Failure Pathway and Progression](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression#node-4-progression--roof-support) +of the common methods manual; other classes, such as organic soils, peat, or dual classes other than SP-SM, GP-GM, and CL-ML, are not accepted. They +set the core-material likelihood factor (see +[Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#crest-soil)). This list is separate from the roof-support material lists of the failure pathway: it +describes where the crack forms, not the soils that must hold a roof over the enlarging pipe. + +- **Several classes listed** — the class with the highest likelihood factor governs. +- **No classes listed** — the crest soils are taken as Unknown, which carries an intermediate likelihood factor. +- **Clean or nearly clean sands and gravels** — the classes SP-SM, SW, SP, GP-GM, GW, and GP, with less than 12 percent fines, may be listed but + are not scored. When every listed class is one of these, the mechanism does not apply: no crack forms and the SRP is negligible at every pool + level (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#crest-soils-that-cannot-frost-crack)). + +### Surface cover over the core + +The surface cover over the core at the crest sets the surface-cover likelihood factor, the least heavily weighted of the three flaw factors (see +[Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#surface-cover)). The choices are: + +- **Paved** — a concrete or sealed roadway or pathway over the core; the least likely condition for a frost crack. +- **Gravel road** +- **No road or pathway** — the most likely condition for a frost crack. + +### Continuous frost cracking observed + +The observation is answered yes only when all three of the following hold: transverse cracking has been observed at the crest, the cracking is +judged to have been caused by freezing, and it is judged to be continuous across the crest. A yes sets the flaw probability to 1.0 whatever the +factors score (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#observation-override)). It does not change the crack depth, and it has no effect when +the mechanism does not apply. The default, no, leaves the flaw probability to the scored factors. + +## Inputs Shared with the CLE Family + + lists the shared input groups and how this model uses each. The quantities, their +valid ranges, and their defaults are given in the linked sections of the common methods manual. + + + +- **Hydraulic loading** — the headwater series and optional tailwater series of + [Hydraulic Loading](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#hydraulic-loading). The headwater + series needs at least two distinct values. Tailwater does not enter any node of this model; it is carried through to the results only. +- **Crest elevation** — the top of the embankment, from + [Embankment Description](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#embankment-description). The + bottom of the crack is the crest elevation less the crack depth, and it must be on the same datum as the headwater series. +- **Embankment type** — homogeneous earthfill, zoned earthfill, or central-core earth and rockfill, from the same section. It sets Node 5, the + probability of no crack filling. +- **Failure-pathway inputs** — the crest-crack form of + [Failure-Pathway Inputs](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#failure-pathway-inputs): the + top-of-filter elevation (blank when no filter intersects the pathway), the continuation inputs and the below-filter roof materials (both required + when a filter is present and omitted otherwise), and the full-pathway roof materials (required unless the filter's top reaches the crest). +- **Upstream seepage-limiting elements** — any of the six element types of + [Upstream Seepage-Limiting Elements](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#upstream-seepage-limiting-elements), + with the top-of-wall elevation when a wall stops below the crest. +- **Intervention and breach** — the probabilities of unsuccessful intervention and of breach of + [Intervention and Breach](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#intervention-and-breach). + +## Units + +The crest, headwater, tailwater, filter, and wall elevations are entered on one common datum and in one length unit, as described in +[Units and Datum](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#units-and-datum). The crack depths of +this model are tabulated in feet and are subtracted from the crest elevation without conversion (see +[Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#crack-depth-and-bottom-of-the-crack)). The crack width the model reports is always in millimeters. diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..0e0e83c68 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,311 @@ +--- +title: Flaw Assessment +--- + +import Citation from '@site/src/components/Citation'; +import CitationFootnote from '@site/src/components/CitationFootnote'; +import Equation from '@site/src/components/Equation'; +import EquationReference from '@site/src/components/EquationReference'; +import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer'; +import TableReference from '@site/src/components/TableReference'; +import TableVertical from '@site/src/components/TableVertical'; + + + +# Flaw Assessment + +Node 1 of the event tree is the probability $P_{flaw}$ that a continuous transverse frost crack exists across the crest. The flaw assessment also +produces the one flaw quantity the downstream nodes use — the bottom-of-crack elevation $z_{bc}$, below which water cannot enter the crack — and a +crack width reported for reference. The assessment follows the risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring of Fell et al. (2024) , +in the form shared by the CLE screening family and documented in +[Flaw Conventions](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#risk-factor-and-likelihood-factor-scoring). +It proceeds in five steps: + +1. Score the three site factors — climate, crest soil, and surface cover — each with a likelihood factor. +2. Form the weighted sum of the likelihood factors. +3. Convert the weighted sum to a raw flaw probability, applying the lower threshold. +4. Apply the observation override to obtain $P_{flaw}$. +5. Take the crack depth from the climate and the bottom of the crack from the crest elevation less that depth; take the crack width from the + weighted sum. + +A preliminary check precedes the scoring: when every listed crest soil is one that cannot frost-crack, the mechanism does not apply and the +assessment ends there (see [Crest Soils That Cannot Frost-Crack](#crest-soils-that-cannot-frost-crack)). + +## Factor Scores + +Each factor $j$ carries a risk factor $RF_j$, its weight, and a likelihood factor $LF_j$, its score for the site on a scale on which 1 is the least +likely condition for a frost crack and 4 the most likely (). The likelihood-factor +tables follow Fell et al. (2024) . + +clim', 'LFcore', 'LFsurf'], + ['3', '2', '1'], + ['1 to 4', '2 to 4', '2 to 4'], + ]} +/> + +None of the three factors is an incompatible-condition factor in the sense of the common scoring scheme: a likelihood factor of 1 does not by +itself force the flaw probability to zero. Only the climate can score 1, and an above-freezing climate is instead limited by its shallow crack (see +[Crack Depth and Bottom of the Crack](#crack-depth-and-bottom-of-the-crack)). + +### Climate + +The climate likelihood factor and the crack depth both come from the freeze-duration climate category +(). The crack depth is documented in +[Crack Depth and Bottom of the Crack](#crack-depth-and-bottom-of-the-crack). + +clim' }, { value: 'Crack Depth dc (ft)' }]]} + columns={[ + [ + 'Sub-arctic or alpine, below freezing 3 months or more', + 'Sub-arctic or alpine, below freezing 1 to 3 months', + 'Temperate, below freezing up to a month', + 'Above freezing except possibly overnight', + ], + ['4', '3', '2', '1'], + ['6', '4', '2', '1'], + ]} +/> + +### Crest soil + +Each crest soil class that can frost-crack maps to a core-material likelihood factor per +. + +core' }]]} + columns={[ + ['GC', 'MH', 'CL-ML', 'SM', 'GM', 'ML', 'SC', 'CL', 'CH', 'Unknown (none listed)'], + [ + 'Clayey gravel', + 'High-plasticity silt', + 'Silty clay', + 'Silty sand', + 'Silty gravel', + 'Low-plasticity silt', + 'Clayey sand', + 'Lean clay', + 'Fat clay', + '—', + ], + ['4', '4', '3.5', '3', '3', '3', '3', '3', '2', '3'], + ]} +/> + +When several classes are listed, the governing likelihood factor is the highest among the listed classes that can frost-crack: + + + +where $\mathcal{S}^{*}$ is the set of listed crest soil classes, excluding the clean and nearly clean sands and gravels described below. The class +that attains the maximum is reported as the governing crest soil; when two classes tie, the first listed is reported. Taking the most +crack-susceptible soil is a screening design decision (engineering judgment): the maximum is the conservative choice, consistent with the +continuation method's use of the largest probability across the base soils a filter protects. When no class is listed, the crest soil is Unknown and $LF_{core} = 3$. + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-03 — Engineering Basis] +The likelihood factor of 3 assigned to an Unknown crest soil (no class listed) requires an engineering basis. State whether Unknown is a category of +the core-material table of Fell et al. (2024) or a screening choice, and if the latter, provide the engineering-judgment attribution. Note that +the value is below the 4 of GC and MH and the 3.5 of CL-ML, so an Unknown crest scores lower than a crest known to be of any of those classes. + +Proposed (unconfirmed): an intermediate value representing the most common fine-grained crest soils (SM, GM, ML, SC, CL all score 3). Confirm or +replace. +::: + +### Surface cover + +The surface cover over the core maps to the surface-cover likelihood factor per . No +category scores 1. + +surf' }]]} + columns={[ + ['Paved', 'Gravel road', 'No road or pathway'], + ['2', '3', '4'], + ]} +/> + +## Weighted Sum + +The three scores combine into the weighted sum of +[Flaw Conventions](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#weighted-sum): + + + +The weighted sum is always a whole number, because the one fractional score (3.5, for CL-ML) carries a risk factor of 2. It ranges from 9 — an +above-freezing climate, a fat clay (CH) crest, and a paved surface — to 24 — the longest freeze duration, a clayey gravel (GC) or high-plasticity +silt (MH) crest, and no road or pathway. Because the climate carries the largest weight, one step in the climate category moves the weighted sum by +3, one step in the crest soil by 2 (or 1 for the half step to or from CL-ML), and one step in the surface cover by 1. + +## Raw Flaw Probability + +The weighted sum is converted to the raw flaw probability $P_{raw}$ by the curve tabulated in +. Between tabulated points, the logarithm of the probability is interpolated linearly in +the weighted sum, 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) +of the common methods manual. A weighted sum above 24 cannot occur, so the curve's upper end is the largest attainable value. + +raw' }]]} + columns={[ + ['Below 13', '13', '16', '21', '24'], + ['0', '0.001', '0.01', '0.1', '0.9'], + ]} +/> + +The model applies a lower threshold of 13: + + + +A weighted sum of exactly 13 takes the first tabulated value, 0.001; only a sum strictly below 13 gives zero. With a weighted sum of 14, for +example, the raw probability is one third of the way from 0.001 to 0.01 on a logarithmic scale, $10^{-3 + 1/3} \approx 2.15 \times 10^{-3}$. + +The threshold can be reached only in the two mildest climates: + +- **Above freezing** ($LF_{clim} = 1$) — the weighted sum reaches 13 only when $2\,LF_{core} + LF_{surf} \ge 10$: a GC or MH crest with any + surface cover, a CL-ML crest with a gravel road or no road, or a crest scoring 3 (including Unknown) with no road or pathway. A CH crest is always + below the threshold. +- **Temperate** ($LF_{clim} = 2$) — only a CH crest with a paved surface (a weighted sum of 12) is below the threshold. + +In the two sub-arctic climates the weighted sum is at least 15, so the threshold never applies. + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-04 — Engineering Basis] +The weighted-sum curve of (13, 16, 21, 24 → 0.001, 0.01, 0.1, 0.9) and its lower +threshold of 13, below which the raw flaw probability is zero, require an engineering basis. Provide the table or figure of Fell et al. (2024) that +gives this relationship for frost cracking, or the engineering-judgment attribution, and state why a weighted sum below 13 is treated as +incompatible with a continuous frost crack rather than as a small probability. + +Proposed (unconfirmed): the frost-cracking relationship between the weighted sum and the probability of cracking of Fell et al. (2024), with the +threshold at the lowest weighted sum the source tabulates. Confirm or replace. +::: + +## Observation Override + +When continuous frost cracking has been observed (see +[Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#continuous-frost-cracking-observed)), the flaw probability is 1.0. Otherwise it is the raw +probability, never less than a negligibly small value: + + + +where $\varepsilon$ is the negligibly small probability the CLE family uses in place of zero (see +[SRP Computation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#srp-computation)). The override takes +precedence over the lower threshold: an observed continuous frost crack has a flaw probability of 1.0 even where the weighted sum is below 13. It +sets Node 1 only — the crack depth and every downstream node are evaluated as usual — and it applies only when the mechanism applies, as described +in [Observation Overrides](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#observation-overrides). + +## Crest Soils That Cannot Frost-Crack + +The six clean and nearly clean sand and gravel classes — SP-SM, SW, SP, GP-GM, GW, and GP, the classes with less than 12 percent fines — do not +frost-crack and are not scored. A listed class of this group is set aside, and the remaining listed classes govern by +. When every listed class belongs to this group, the mechanism does not apply, as +described in [Inapplicable Mechanism](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#inapplicable-mechanism): + +- the flaw probability is the negligible value $\varepsilon$, and no weighted sum is formed; +- the observation override is not consulted, since observed cracking in such a crest cannot be frost cracking; +- no crack forms, so the crack depth and crack width are zero and the bottom of the crack is the crest elevation; +- initiation is zero at every pool level, and the SRP is negligible throughout. + +The silty classes SM, GM, and ML are scored, although they can be non-plastic. + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-05 — Engineering Basis] +The treatment of SP-SM, SW, SP, GP-GM, GW, and GP as crest soils that cannot frost-crack — set aside when other classes are listed, and making the +mechanism inapplicable when they are the only classes listed — requires an engineering basis, including why the silty classes SM, GM, and ML, which +can also be non-plastic, are scored. Provide the literature source or the engineering-judgment attribution. + +Proposed (unconfirmed): a cohesionless soil cannot sustain an open frost crack, so these classes are absent from the core-material table of +Fell et al. (2024). Confirm or replace. +::: + +## Crack Depth and Bottom of the Crack + +The crack depth $d_c$ depends on the climate category alone (); it does not depend +on the crest soil, the surface cover, or the weighted sum. The bottom of the crack follows from +[Crest-crack models: bottom of the crack](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#crest-crack-models-bottom-of-the-crack): + + + +where $z_c$ is the crest elevation. Initiation is possible only at pool levels above $z_{bc}$ (see [Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx#node-2-initiation)). +When the mechanism applies, the bottom of the crack is computed this way whatever the flaw probability, including when the override applies or the +weighted sum is below the threshold. When it does not apply, the crack depth is zero and the bottom of the crack is the crest elevation (see +[Crest Soils That Cannot Frost-Crack](#crest-soils-that-cannot-frost-crack)). + +The shallow 1 ft crack of an above-freezing climate is what limits that climate's contribution: the flaw probability of an above-freezing site can +be non-negligible (up to $4.6 \times 10^{-3}$ from the scored factors, at a weighted sum of 15), but the SRP can rise from negligible only for +pools higher than 1 ft below the crest. + +The tabulated depths are in feet. They are subtracted from the crest elevation as given, with no unit conversion. + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-06 — Applicability] +The crack depths of are in feet and are subtracted from the crest elevation with no +conversion, so an analysis in which elevations are entered in meters would place the bottom of the crack 6, 4, 2, or 1 m below the crest — about +3.3 times too deep. State whether the model is to be used only with elevations in feet, or how a user working in SI units should proceed, so that +the limitation can be stated here. (The family-level question is marker IN-01 of the common methods manual.) +::: + +:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-07 — Engineering Basis] +The crack depths by climate category (: 6, 4, 2, and 1 ft), and their independence from +the crest soil and the surface cover, require an engineering basis. Provide the literature source (for example, a frost-penetration or +frost-crack-depth relationship) or the engineering-judgment attribution. + +Proposed (unconfirmed): the depths represent the depth of frost penetration into the crest for each freeze duration, over which frost cracks can +extend. Confirm or replace. +::: + +### Crack width + +The model also reports a crack width $w_c$, interpolated linearly (not logarithmically) in the weighted sum between the points of +, following the crack-width relationship of Fell et al. (2024) . +A weighted sum at or below 12 gives zero width, and a sum of 24 gives the largest width, 20 mm. With a +weighted sum of 14, for example, the crack width is 3 mm. + +c (mm)' }]]} + columns={[ + ['12 or less', '13', '16', '21', '24'], + ['0', '2', '5', '10', '20'], + ]} +/> + +The crack width is reported for reference only. It does not enter the bottom of the crack, the initiation node, or the SRP, since initiation in an +open crest crack is taken as certain without a shear stress analysis. It can inform the crack opening assumed in a detailed crack-geometry +initiation analysis. + + diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..925bf3655 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,216 @@ +--- +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 computes the SRP at each headwater level from the eight-node event tree shared by the CLE screening family, documented in +[Event Tree](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree) of the common methods manual. As a crest-crack +model, it evaluates initiation, continuation, roof support, and flow limitation at each pool level, and takes the flaw, crack-filling, +intervention, and breach probabilities as 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 intermediate levels between them, as described in +[Headwater Grid](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#headwater-grid). + summarizes how this model populates each node; the sections that follow give the +detail. + + + +## Node 1: Flaw + +*Question:* Does a continuous transverse frost crack exist across the crest? + +$P_{flaw}$ is the result of the frost-cracking flaw assessment documented in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx): the scored probability +from the climate, the crest soil, and the surface cover, or 1.0 when continuous frost cracking has been observed. It is the same at every pool level. + +## Node 2: Initiation + +*Question:* Once water can enter the crack, does erosion of its walls begin? + +Initiation is the headwater gate of the crest-crack models, documented in +[Crest-Crack Models: Headwater Gate](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#crest-crack-models-headwater-gate), +applied at the bottom of the frost crack $z_{bc}$ from [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#crack-depth-and-bottom-of-the-crack): + + + +where $h$ is the headwater elevation. Initiation is zero at a pool exactly at the bottom of the crack, and zero at every pool level when the +mechanism does not apply. No shear stress is computed and tailwater plays no part. Because the crack depth is set by the climate alone, the climate +category fixes the pool level at which the SRP can first rise: 6 ft below the crest for the longest freeze duration, and 1 ft below the crest for an +above-freezing climate. + +## Node 3: Continuation + +*Question:* Does an unfiltered seepage exit allow erosion to continue? + +Continuation follows the crest-crack pathway rule of +[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: + + + +where $z_{tf}$ is the top-of-filter elevation and $P_{ce}$ is the probability of continuing erosion past the filter. $P_{ce}$ is evaluated once, +from the filter and base-soil description, by the shared continuation method; with several base soils it is the largest of their pair +probabilities, as described in +[Governing Base Soil](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/method-selection-and-governing-base-soil#governing-base-soil) +of the continuation manual. The filter caps the pathway when its top reaches the crest and no full-pathway roof materials are given. With no filter +on the pathway, the continuation method is not evaluated and $P_{cont} = 1.0$ at every pool level. + +## Node 4: Progression — Roof Support + +*Question:* Does a continuous stable roof form over the enlarging pipe, so that it stays open? + +Roof support is the minimum roof-support probability across the material set that governs at the pool level, per +[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): + + + +where $\mathcal{M}_{bf}$ is the set of below-filter roof materials and $\mathcal{M}_{fp}$ the set of full-pathway roof materials. Roof support shares +its gate with continuation, so both nodes switch together where the pool crosses the top of the filter. The roof-material lists are separate from the +crest soil classifications of the flaw assessment. + +## Node 5: Progression — No Crack Filling + +*Question:* Does the enlarging pipe remain unfilled by material carried in from upstream? + +$P_{nf}$ is taken from the embankment type per +[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). +It is the same at every pool level. + +## Node 6: Progression — No Flow Limitation + +*Question:* Does the flow into the enlarging pipe remain unrestricted by upstream seepage-limiting elements? + +$P_{nl}$ is the minimum probability of no flow limitation across the upstream elements that reach the pool level, or 1.0 when none is listed, per +[Node 6: Progression — No Flow Limitation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression#node-6-progression--no-flow-limitation). +When a top-of-wall elevation $z_{tw}$ is supplied, every listed element applies at pool levels at or below $z_{tw}$; above it the walls drop out and +only an upstream facing element, if one is listed, still applies (otherwise $P_{nl} = 1.0$), as described in +[Walls That Stop Below the Crest](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression#walls-that-stop-below-the-crest). + +## Nodes 7 and 8: Unsuccessful Intervention and Breach + +*Questions:* Do detection and intervention fail? Does an uncontrolled release of the impounded water occur? + +$P_{int}$ and $P_{br}$ are the user-specified probabilities, each one value applied at every pool level and each defaulting to 1.0. + +## SRP Computation + +The SRP at each pool level is the product of the eight node probabilities: + + + +Where the product is zero — at and below the bottom of the crack, or where a user-supplied intervention or breach probability is zero — the SRP is +reported as the negligibly small value the CLE family uses in place of zero (see +[SRP Computation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#srp-computation)). Above the bottom of the +crack, initiation is 1.0 and the SRP is the product of the remaining nodes at that pool level. + +## Worked Example + + traces the event tree for a homogeneous earthfill embankment with its crest at +elevation 265 ft in a temperate climate. The crest soil is a silty sand (SM) with a paved road over the core, no frost cracking has been observed, +no filter intersects the pathway, the full-pathway roof material is the same silty sand, and a modern cutoff wall reaching the crest is the only +upstream element. Intervention and breach take their defaults. + +flaw', + 'Crack depth dc', + 'Bottom of the crack zbc', + 'Crack width wc', + 'Initiation Pinit', + 'Continuation Pcont', + 'Roof support Proof', + 'No crack filling Pnf', + 'No flow limitation Pnl', + 'Intervention and breach', + 'SRP above zbc', + ], + [ + '3 × 2 + 2 × 3 + 1 × 2', + 'One third of the way from 0.001 to 0.01 (log scale)', + 'Temperate climate', + '265 − 2', + 'Linear between 2 mm at 13 and 5 mm at 16', + 'Zero at or below 263 ft; certain above', + 'No filter on the pathway', + 'Silty sand (SM)', + 'Homogeneous earthfill', + 'Modern cutoff wall', + 'Defaults', + 'Product of the nodes', + ], + [ + '14', + '2.154 × 10-3', + '2 ft', + '263 ft', + '3 mm', + '0 or 1.0', + '1.0', + '0.85', + '1.0', + '0.001', + '1.0 and 1.0', + '1.831 × 10-6', + ], + ]} +/> + +The SRP is negligible at pool levels up to and including 263 ft and $1.831 \times 10^{-6}$ at every pool level above it, a single step at the +bottom of the crack. The cutoff wall governs the result there, reducing it by three orders of magnitude; were the wall's top below the crest but above +the bottom of the crack, the curve would step up by a factor of 1,000 where the pool rises above the top of the wall. diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..5fa9b1c45 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,97 @@ +--- +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 CLE freezing screening model applies deliberate simplifications relative to a detailed internal-erosion risk analysis. They reduce input +requirements and are designed to avoid false negatives at the screening level. This chapter lists the assumptions specific to frost cracking. The +assumptions the model shares with the rest of the CLE family — the product form of the event tree, the single values for intervention and breach, +the headwater grid, the flaw probability being the same at every pool level, certain initiation above the bottom of a crest crack, the crest-crack +filter gate, and the roof-support, crack-filling, and flow-limitation conventions — are listed with their bases in +[Assumptions and Limitations](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/assumptions-and-limitations) of the common +methods manual. Each assumption below states its engineering basis, its effect on results, and the conditions under which it may not hold. Where an +engineering basis is still awaiting confirmation, the assumption cross-references the input marker at its primary location in this document. + +## Flaw Assessment + +1. **The likelihood of a continuous frost crack is scored from three factors — climate, crest soil, and surface cover — weighted 3, 2, and 1.** No + other site condition enters the flaw probability (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#factor-scores)). + - *Engineering basis:* Risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring and likelihood-factor tables of + Fell et al. (2024) ; the physical basis of each factor is requested at marker IN-01 in + [Model Overview](./02-model-overview.mdx#purpose). + - *Effect on results:* The climate carries the most weight: one step in the climate category moves the weighted sum by 3, which moves the flaw + probability by up to a factor of 10 within the tabulated range, or from zero to a non-negligible value where it crosses the threshold of 13. + - *When it may not hold:* Where a site condition outside the three factors is known to control cracking at the crest; the risk team's estimate + should then replace the screening value. +2. **The most crack-susceptible of the listed crest soils governs the crest-soil score.** + - *Engineering basis:* Screening design decision (engineering judgment): taking the highest likelihood factor is the conservative choice, consistent + with the continuation method's use of the largest probability across base soils. + - *Effect on results:* A crest that is mostly of a low-scoring soil, such as fat clay (CH), scores as its most susceptible listed soil. Once at + least one scored soil is listed, adding a further soil can raise the flaw probability but never lower it. + - *When it may not hold:* Where the susceptible soil occupies a small, isolated part of the crest that a transverse crack would not cross. +3. **When no crest soil class is listed (Unknown), the crest-soil likelihood factor is 3.** + - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-03 in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#crest-soil). + - *Effect on results:* An unknown crest scores as SM, GM, ML, SC, or CL would, and below GC, MH, and CL-ML; it is not the most conservative + choice. + - *When it may not hold:* Where the crest may be of clayey gravel (GC), high-plasticity silt (MH), or silty clay (CL-ML); listing the candidate + classes then gives the conservative score. +4. **A weighted sum below 13 gives a raw flaw probability of zero, and the curve rises log-linearly from 0.001 at 13 to 0.9 at 24.** + - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-04 in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#raw-flaw-probability). + - *Effect on results:* Above-freezing sites where $2\,LF_{core} + LF_{surf} \lt 10$, and temperate sites with a fat clay crest under a paved + surface, have a negligible flaw probability and a negligible SRP unless frost cracking has been observed (the combinations are listed in + [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#raw-flaw-probability)). + - *When it may not hold:* Where frost cracking has occurred at comparable sites in such conditions; the observation override, or a risk-team + estimate, then applies. +5. **The clean and nearly clean sands and gravels — SP-SM, SW, SP, GP-GM, GW, and GP — do not frost-crack.** They are set aside when other soils + are listed, and the mechanism does not apply when only they are listed. + - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-05 in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#crest-soils-that-cannot-frost-crack). + - *Effect on results:* A crest listed entirely in these classes gives a negligible SRP at every pool level, and an observation of continuous + frost cracking is not consulted. + - *When it may not hold:* Where part of a crest classified as a clean sand or gravel contains finer material; the class of that material should + then be listed. +6. **An observed continuous frost crack has a flaw probability of 1.0, even where the weighted sum is below the threshold.** + - *Engineering basis:* Engineering judgment shared by the CLE family: an observed continuous crack demonstrates the flaw (see + [Observation Overrides](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#observation-overrides)). + - *Effect on results:* The SRP above the bottom of the crack is governed entirely by the continuation and progression nodes and the + intervention and breach probabilities. + - *When it may not hold:* Where the observed cracking is not continuous across the crest or has another cause, such as desiccation or + settlement; the override should be reserved for cracking judged to be frost cracking that is continuous. + +## Crack Geometry + +7. **The crack depth depends on the freeze-duration climate alone: 6, 4, 2, or 1 ft.** + - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-07 in + [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#crack-depth-and-bottom-of-the-crack). + - *Effect on results:* The climate fixes the pool level at which the SRP rises from negligible. In an above-freezing climate only pools higher + than 1 ft below the crest can initiate erosion, which limits that climate's contribution even where its flaw probability is non-negligible. + - *When it may not hold:* Where site measurements or observations of frost penetration or crack depth are available; a detailed analysis then + uses the site depth. +8. **The tabulated crack depths are in feet and are applied without unit conversion.** + - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-06 in + [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#crack-depth-and-bottom-of-the-crack). + - *Effect on results:* With elevations in feet the bottom of the crack is placed as tabulated. With elevations in meters it would be placed + about 3.3 times too deep, lowering the pool level at which the SRP rises (conservative, but not as intended). + - *When it may not hold:* Whenever elevations are not entered in feet. +9. **The crack width does not enter the event tree.** The width is reported for reference only. + - *Engineering basis:* Consequence of the certain initiation of an open crest crack, Assumption 9 in + [Assumptions and Limitations: Initiation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/assumptions-and-limitations#initiation) + of the common methods manual (see also + [Crest-Crack Models: Headwater Gate](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#crest-crack-models-headwater-gate)). + - *Effect on results:* The model gives no initiation credit for a narrow computed crack, which is conservative where the width would be small. + - *When it may not hold:* For narrow cracks in erosion-resistant crest soils, where a crack-geometry initiation analysis could show that erosion + does not initiate. +10. **Tailwater plays no part in the model.** It is carried through to the results only. + - *Engineering basis:* The headwater gate of the crest-crack models depends only on whether the pool stands above the bottom of the crack (see + [Crest-Crack Models: Headwater Gate](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#crest-crack-models-headwater-gate)). + - *Effect on results:* A high tailwater does not reduce the SRP. + - *When it may not hold:* Where tailwater stands high enough on the downstream face to reduce the flow through the crack materially; a + detailed crack-geometry analysis accounts for it. + + diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx new file mode 100644 index 000000000..676dd33ee --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx @@ -0,0 +1,85 @@ +--- +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 SRP at each evaluated pool level together with the probability of each of the eight event-tree nodes, in the form shared by +the CLE crest-crack models and documented in +[Output and Interpretation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation) of the common +methods manual, and the results of the frost-cracking flaw assessment. + +## Results + +- **Pool-independent results** — the flaw probability (Node 1), the probability of no crack filling (Node 5), the probability of no flow limitation + with every listed element applying, and the roof-support minimum for each pathway that exists: the full-pathway value (absent when the filter + caps the pathway) and the below-filter value (absent when no filter is present). See + [Pool-Independent Results](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#pool-independent-results). +- **Pool-dependent series** — the pool levels, the tailwater at each (blank where there is none), and at each pool level the initiation, + continuation, roof-support, 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). +- **Continuation result** — when a filter intersects the pathway, the result of the shared continuation method, including the probability of + continuing erosion $P_{ce}$, the governing base soil, and the method that produced it (see + [Output and Interpretation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation) of the continuation + manual). No continuation result is reported when no filter is present. + +### Flaw-assessment results + +- **Likelihood factors** — the climate, crest-soil, and surface-cover scores $LF_{clim}$, $LF_{core}$, and $LF_{surf}$. +- **Governing crest soil** — the listed class whose score governs $LF_{core}$; blank when the crest soil is Unknown or the mechanism does not apply. +- **Mechanism applies** — whether at least one listed crest soil can frost-crack, or no soil is listed. When the mechanism does not apply, the + crest-soil score, the weighted sum, and the raw flaw probability are reported as zero. +- **Weighted sum** $\Sigma$. +- **Raw flaw probability** $P_{raw}$ — before the observation override and before the negligible floor; zero when the weighted sum is below 13. +- **Observation override applied** — whether continuous frost cracking was reported and set the flaw probability to 1.0. +- **Flaw probability** $P_{flaw}$ — the value used in the event tree. +- **Crack depth** $d_c$ in feet, **bottom of the crack** $z_{bc}$, and **crack width** $w_c$ in millimeters (see + [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#crack-depth-and-bottom-of-the-crack)). + +## Interpreting the System Response Curve + +The curve has the shape of a crest-crack curve, 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): +negligible at and below the bottom of the crack, and piecewise constant above it, stepping only where the pool crosses the top of a filter or the +top of a wall that lies above the bottom of the crack. For frost cracking: + +- **The climate sets where the curve rises.** When the mechanism applies, the bottom of the crack is 6, 4, 2, or 1 ft below the crest by climate + category, so pools further below the crest contribute nothing whatever the other inputs. In an above-freezing climate, only pools higher than + 1 ft below the crest can give a non-negligible SRP. +- **The flaw probability scales the whole curve above the bottom of the crack.** With initiation certain above the bottom of the crack, the SRP at + each pool level there is the flaw probability times the continuation and progression nodes that govern at that pool level and the intervention + and breach probabilities. The weighted sum, and so the climate, crest soil, and surface cover, set the flaw probability unless an observation + override sets it to 1.0. +- **A negligible curve at every pool level** results, for example, when the mechanism does not apply (every listed crest soil a clean sand or + gravel), when the weighted sum is below 13 and no frost cracking has been observed, when a user-supplied intervention or breach probability is + zero, or when no evaluated pool level rises above the bottom of the crack. The flaw-assessment results identify the first two cases; the inputs + and the evaluated pool levels identify the others. +- **The crack width does not affect the curve.** The SRP depends on the weighted sum only through the flaw probability; the crack width derived + from the weighted sum never enters the curve. + +## Checking the Result + +The model is deterministic apart from any Monte Carlo filter evaluation in the continuation method, so the curve can be reproduced from the reported +values: the flaw probability from the factor scores and the curve of [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#raw-flaw-probability), the bottom of +the crack from the crest elevation and the climate's crack depth, and the SRP at each pool level from the product of the reported nodes. The +checks of [Checking the Result](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#checking-the-result) +apply. Confirm that the step in the curve sits at the crest elevation less the tabulated crack depth, on the same datum and in feet as the headwater. If +it does not, the crest and headwater elevations are on different datums or in different units (see [Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#units)). +A metric analysis passes this check while still placing the crack too deep (see marker IN-06 in +[Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#crack-depth-and-bottom-of-the-crack)). + +## Screening Results Relative to Detailed Analysis + +The model is a screening tool. Its result indicates whether concentrated leak erosion through a frost crack at the crest warrants detailed analysis; +it is not a substitute for a detailed assessment. The screening simplifications — the three-factor scoring, the tabulated crack depths, the certain +initiation of an open crack, and the tabulated progression probabilities — are chosen to avoid false negatives. Where the result is significant to a +decision, the flaw probability, the crack depth, and the governing progression nodes should be re-examined with site-specific information, using the +methods of Fell et al. (2024) , a crack-geometry initiation analysis, and the judgment of the risk team. + + diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..6ac77a374 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md @@ -0,0 +1,126 @@ +# Input Needed — CLE Freezing 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 certain initiation of an open crest crack, the +log-linear weighted-sum interpolation, the crest-crack filter gate, the roof-support, +crack-filling and flow-limitation conventions, and the family unit system) are asked once, in the +CLE Common Methods manual's own `_input-needed.md`, and are not repeated here. + +--- + +## IN-01 — Definition — `02-model-overview.mdx` + +**Regarding:** The physical mechanism by which freezing opens a transverse crack at the crest, +and why each of the three flaw factors bears on it — a longer freeze duration, the crest soil +classification, and the surface cover over the core (paved, gravel road, or no road or pathway, +with a paved crest scoring as the least likely condition). + +**Needed:** A description of the mechanism and of the direction of each factor, with a +literature source where one applies. + +**Proposed (unconfirmed):** Freezing of the crest soils causes contraction and ice segregation +that open transverse cracks, which deepen and widen with the duration of freezing; fine-grained +soils are the most susceptible, and a surface cover kept clear of snow, such as a paved road, +changes the insulation of the crest and so the cracking. In particular, confirm the direction of +the surface-cover factor. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-02 — Definition — `03-input-parameters.mdx` + +**Regarding:** The criterion for placing a site in one of the four freeze-duration climate +categories (below freezing 3 months or more; 1 to 3 months; up to a month; above freezing +except possibly overnight). + +**Needed:** The temperature measure "below freezing" refers to (mean daily air temperature, +daily minimum, ground temperature at the crest, …), how the duration is counted (continuous or +cumulative; typical or severe winter), and the source of the categories in Fell et al. (2024) if +they are defined there. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-03 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx` + +**Regarding:** The core-material likelihood factor of 3 assigned to an Unknown crest soil (no +class listed). The value is below the 4 of GC and MH and the 3.5 of CL-ML, so an Unknown crest +scores lower than a crest known to be of any of those classes. + +**Needed:** Whether Unknown is a category of the Fell et al. (2024) core-material table or a +screening choice; if the latter, the engineering-judgment attribution. + +**Proposed (unconfirmed):** An intermediate value representing the most common fine-grained +crest soils (SM, GM, ML, SC, CL all score 3). + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-04 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx` + +**Regarding:** The weighted-sum curve for frost cracking (Σ = 13, 16, 21, 24 → 0.001, 0.01, +0.1, 0.9) and its lower threshold of 13, below which the raw flaw probability is zero. + +**Needed:** The table or figure of Fell et al. (2024) that gives this relationship, or the +engineering-judgment attribution, and why a weighted sum below 13 is treated as incompatible +with a continuous frost crack rather than as a small probability. + +**Proposed (unconfirmed):** The frost-cracking relationship between the weighted sum and the +probability of cracking of Fell et al. (2024), with the threshold at the lowest weighted sum the +source tabulates. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-05 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx` + +**Regarding:** The treatment of SP-SM, SW, SP, GP-GM, GW, and GP as crest soils that cannot +frost-crack — set aside when other classes are listed, and making the mechanism inapplicable +(no crack, negligible SRP, observation override not consulted) when they are the only classes +listed — while the silty classes SM, GM, and ML, which can also be non-plastic, are scored. + +**Needed:** Literature source or engineering-judgment attribution. + +**Proposed (unconfirmed):** A cohesionless soil cannot sustain an open frost crack, so these +classes are absent from the Fell et al. (2024) core-material table. + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-06 — Applicability — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx` + +**Regarding:** The crack depths (6, 4, 2, 1 ft) are tabulated in feet and subtracted from the +crest elevation with no unit conversion, so elevations entered in meters would place the bottom +of the crack 6, 4, 2, or 1 m below the crest — about 3.3 times too deep. + +**Needed:** Whether the model is to be used only with elevations in feet, or how a user working +in SI units should proceed, so the limitation can be stated. (The family-level question is +marker IN-01 of the CLE Common Methods manual.) + +**Answer:** + +--- + +## IN-07 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx` + +**Regarding:** The crack depths by climate category (sub-arctic 3 months or more 6 ft; sub-arctic +1 to 3 months 4 ft; temperate up to a month 2 ft; above freezing 1 ft), and their independence +from the crest soil and the surface cover. + +**Needed:** Literature source (for example, a frost-penetration or frost-crack-depth +relationship) or the engineering-judgment attribution. + +**Proposed (unconfirmed):** The depths represent the depth of frost penetration into the crest +for each freeze duration, over which frost cracks can extend. + +**Answer:** + +--- diff --git a/src/docConfig.js b/src/docConfig.js index 94aa4cf81..933318a53 100644 --- a/src/docConfig.js +++ b/src/docConfig.js @@ -409,7 +409,7 @@ const docs = [ software: 'system-response', doc_location: 'web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening', doc_name: 'CLE Freezing Screening Technical Reference Manual', - active: false, + active: true, draft: true, }, { diff --git a/static/bibliographies/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/bib.json b/static/bibliographies/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/bib.json new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e5c80cf3b --- /dev/null +++ b/static/bibliographies/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-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 6c45ec425292603b0ae72e8613a0310194a7510a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Adam Gohs Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 06:43:58 -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 | 12 +++++----- .../v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx | 16 +++++++------- .../v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx | 14 ++++++------ .../v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx | 22 +++++++++---------- .../v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx | 10 ++++----- .../v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx | 12 +++++----- 7 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx index a2e37e678..5261d4ae5 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx @@ -15,9 +15,9 @@ input burden while avoiding false negatives, and any application that performs s The model is one of eight CLE screening models that share one event tree, one flaw-scoring scheme, one initiation treatment for crest cracks, and one set of failure-pathway rules. Those shared methods are documented once, in the -[Concentrated Leak Erosion Common Methods Screening Technical Reference Manual](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/preface), +[Concentrated Leak Erosion Common Methods Screening Technical Reference Manual](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/preface), and the continuation node is evaluated by the shared method documented in the -[Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening Technical Reference Manual](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/preface). +[Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening Technical Reference Manual](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/preface). This document covers what is specific to frost cracking — the flaw assessment, the crack depth that sets where initiation can begin, the mechanism-specific inputs, and the assumptions that come with them — and links the chapter of the shared manuals that documents each common step. diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx index d4c796571..b42c42332 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ toolbox provide the complete methodologies (see [Comparison with Detailed Models ## How the Model Works The model executes the three stages common to the CLE screening family (see the -[Model Overview](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#how-the-model-works) of the common +[Model Overview](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) of the common methods manual): 1. **Flaw assessment** — The model scores the freeze-duration climate, the most crack-susceptible soil the crack crosses at the crest, and the @@ -81,14 +81,14 @@ The model combines the following engineering methods: - **Risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring** of the probability of a continuous flaw, in which each site factor receives a likelihood factor weighted by a risk factor and the weighted sum is mapped to a probability , as documented for the CLE family - in [Flaw Conventions](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#risk-factor-and-likelihood-factor-scoring) + in [Flaw Conventions](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#risk-factor-and-likelihood-factor-scoring) - **A climate-dependent crack depth** that places the bottom of the frost crack below the crest (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#crack-depth-and-bottom-of-the-crack)) - **A headwater gate at the bottom of the open crack** for initiation, as documented for the crest-crack models in - [Initiation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#crest-crack-models-headwater-gate) + [Initiation](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#crest-crack-models-headwater-gate) - **Filter evaluation, roof-support, crack-filling, and flow-limitation probabilities** for continuation and progression, applied through the crest-crack pathway rules documented in - [Failure Pathway and Progression](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression) + [Failure Pathway and Progression](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression) ## Comparison with Detailed Models @@ -129,13 +129,13 @@ of its walls. summa ## Relationship to the Shared Methods The model is one of the four crest-crack models of the CLE screening family (see -[The Two Model Groups](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#the-two-model-groups) in the +[The Two Model Groups](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#the-two-model-groups) in the common methods manual). Everything after the flaw assessment is common to those models: the event-tree structure, the headwater gate for initiation, the crest-crack pathway rules for continuation and roof support, the crack-filling and flow-limitation tables, and the form of the results. This manual documents the frost-cracking flaw assessment in full and, for every other node, states what this model supplies and links the chapter of the common methods manual that documents the method. The continuation node hands the filter evaluation to the shared continuation method, which combines its results across the base soils the filter protects as described in -[Method Selection and Governing Base Soil](/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/method-selection-and-governing-base-soil). +[Method Selection and Governing Base Soil](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/method-selection-and-governing-base-soil). The model uses no toolbox method. The closest sibling is the desiccation screening model, which shares the structure of the flaw assessment — three factors, a weighted-sum diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx index 9566be83f..1bdedd7b0 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ The model takes two groups of inputs. The **frost-cracking inputs** describe the at the crest, the surface cover over the core, and whether continuous frost cracking has been observed. The **shared inputs** — hydraulic loading, the crest elevation and embankment type, the failure-pathway inputs, the upstream seepage-limiting elements, and the intervention and breach probabilities — are common to the CLE screening family and are documented in -[Common Input Parameters](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters) of the common methods +[Common Input Parameters](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters) of the common methods manual; this chapter states only how this model uses them. The model takes no critical shear stress, initial opening, seepage path length, or embankment cross-section input, because its initiation node involves no shear stress analysis. @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ Fell et al. (2024) if they are defined there. The crest soil classifications are the soil classes, in the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), of every material other than drain or filter material that the crack would cross at the crest. Each is one of the fifteen USCS classes listed in -[Failure Pathway and Progression](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression#node-4-progression--roof-support) +[Failure Pathway and Progression](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression#node-4-progression--roof-support) of the common methods manual; other classes, such as organic soils, peat, or dual classes other than SP-SM, GP-GM, and CL-ML, are not accepted. They set the core-material likelihood factor (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#crest-soil)). This list is separate from the roof-support material lists of the failure pathway: it @@ -119,26 +119,26 @@ valid ranges, and their defaults are given in the linked sections of the common /> - **Hydraulic loading** — the headwater series and optional tailwater series of - [Hydraulic Loading](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#hydraulic-loading). The headwater + [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). The headwater series needs at least two distinct values. Tailwater does not enter any node of this model; it is carried through to the results only. - **Crest elevation** — the top of the embankment, from - [Embankment Description](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#embankment-description). The + [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 bottom of the crack is the crest elevation less the crack depth, and it must be on the same datum as the headwater series. - **Embankment type** — homogeneous earthfill, zoned earthfill, or central-core earth and rockfill, from the same section. It sets Node 5, the probability of no crack filling. - **Failure-pathway inputs** — the crest-crack form of - [Failure-Pathway Inputs](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#failure-pathway-inputs): the + [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): the top-of-filter elevation (blank when no filter intersects the pathway), the continuation inputs and the below-filter roof materials (both required when a filter is present and omitted otherwise), and the full-pathway roof materials (required unless the filter's top reaches the crest). - **Upstream seepage-limiting elements** — any of the six element types of - [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), with the top-of-wall elevation when a wall stops below the crest. - **Intervention and breach** — the probabilities of unsuccessful intervention and of breach of - [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). ## Units The crest, headwater, tailwater, filter, and wall elevations are entered on one common datum and in one length unit, as described in -[Units and Datum](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#units-and-datum). The crack depths 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). The crack depths of this model are tabulated in feet and are subtracted from the crest elevation without conversion (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#crack-depth-and-bottom-of-the-crack)). The crack width the model reports is always in millimeters. diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx index 0e0e83c68..359ddca52 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ Node 1 of the event tree is the probability $P_{flaw}$ that a continuous transve produces the one flaw quantity the downstream nodes use — the bottom-of-crack elevation $z_{bc}$, below which water cannot enter the crack — and a crack width reported for reference. The assessment follows the risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring of Fell et al. (2024) , in the form shared by the CLE screening family and documented in -[Flaw Conventions](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#risk-factor-and-likelihood-factor-scoring). +[Flaw Conventions](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#risk-factor-and-likelihood-factor-scoring). It proceeds in five steps: 1. Score the three site factors — climate, crest soil, and surface cover — each with a likelihood factor. @@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ category scores 1. ## Weighted Sum The three scores combine into the weighted sum of -[Flaw Conventions](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#weighted-sum): +[Flaw Conventions](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#weighted-sum): . Between tabulated points, the logarithm of the probability is interpolated linearly in the weighted sum, 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) of the common methods manual. A weighted sum above 24 cannot occur, so the curve's upper end is the largest attainable value. where $\varepsilon$ is the negligibly small probability the CLE family uses in place of zero (see -[SRP Computation](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#srp-computation)). The override takes +[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)). The override takes precedence over the lower threshold: an observed continuous frost crack has a flaw probability of 1.0 even where the weighted sum is below 13. It sets Node 1 only — the crack depth and every downstream node are evaluated as usual — and it applies only when the mechanism applies, as described -in [Observation Overrides](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#observation-overrides). +in [Observation Overrides](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#observation-overrides). ## Crest Soils That Cannot Frost-Crack The six clean and nearly clean sand and gravel classes — SP-SM, SW, SP, GP-GM, GW, and GP, the classes with less than 12 percent fines — do not frost-crack and are not scored. A listed class of this group is set aside, and the remaining listed classes govern by . When every listed class belongs to this group, the mechanism does not apply, as -described in [Inapplicable Mechanism](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#inapplicable-mechanism): +described in [Inapplicable Mechanism](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#inapplicable-mechanism): - the flaw probability is the negligible value $\varepsilon$, and no weighted sum is formed; - the observation override is not consulted, since observed cracking in such a crest cannot be frost cracking; @@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ Fell et al. (2024). Confirm or replace. The crack depth $d_c$ depends on the climate category alone (); it does not depend on the crest soil, the surface cover, or the weighted sum. The bottom of the crack follows from -[Crest-crack models: bottom of the crack](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#crest-crack-models-bottom-of-the-crack): +[Crest-crack models: bottom of the crack](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#crest-crack-models-bottom-of-the-crack): diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx index 925bf3655..93615e3d6 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx @@ -12,12 +12,12 @@ import TableVertical from '@site/src/components/TableVertical'; # Event Tree The model computes the SRP at each headwater level from the eight-node event tree shared by the CLE screening family, documented in -[Event Tree](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree) of the common methods manual. As a crest-crack +[Event Tree](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree) of the common methods manual. As a crest-crack model, it evaluates initiation, continuation, roof support, and flow limitation at each pool level, and takes the flaw, crack-filling, intervention, and breach probabilities as 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 +[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 intermediate levels between them, as 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 this model populates each node; the sections that follow give the detail. @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ from the climate, the crest soil, and the surface cover, or 1.0 when continuous *Question:* Once water can enter the crack, does erosion of its walls begin? Initiation is the headwater gate of the crest-crack models, documented in -[Crest-Crack Models: Headwater Gate](/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#crest-crack-models-headwater-gate), +[Crest-Crack Models: Headwater Gate](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#crest-crack-models-headwater-gate), applied at the bottom of the frost crack $z_{bc}$ from [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#crack-depth-and-bottom-of-the-crack): Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 09:20:20 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 3/4] Spell out Concentrated Leak Erosion in the manual title --- .../cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx | 4 ++-- .../cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md | 2 +- src/docConfig.js | 2 +- 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx index a1fa686d4..7854d0ed4 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx @@ -2,12 +2,12 @@ title: Document Info reportDate: October 2026 reportType: Technical Reference -reportTitle: CLE Freezing Screening Technical Reference Manual +reportTitle: Concentrated Leak Erosion Freezing Screening Technical Reference Manual reportSubTitle: System Response Library reportAuthors: ['Adam Gohs, P.E.'] reportAbstract: Technical reference documenting the concentrated leak erosion (CLE) freezing screening model in the System Response library. The model computes a system response probability (SRP) at each headwater level for concentrated leak erosion through a transverse crack opened at the crest of an embankment by freezing. The probability of a continuous frost crack is scored by risk-factor and likelihood-factor weighting of three site factors — the freeze-duration climate, the soils the crack crosses at the crest, and the surface cover over the core — and an observation of continuous frost cracking overrides it to certainty. The crack depth is taken from the climate, and initiation is certain once the pool rises above the bottom of the crack. The remaining nodes of the eight-node CLE event tree follow the methods shared by the CLE screening family. The model is fully deterministic apart from any Monte Carlo filter evaluation in the continuation node, and applies simplifications appropriate for screening-level risk analysis. reportSubjectTerms: ['CLE', 'Concentrated Leak Erosion', 'Frost Cracking', 'Freezing', 'Transverse Cracking', 'Crest Crack', 'Screening', 'Event Tree', 'System Response Probability', 'System Response Curve', 'Risk Factor', 'Likelihood Factor'] -citationGuide: 'U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Risk Management Center, CLE Freezing 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 Freezing 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-freezing-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md index 6ac77a374..23e570492 100644 --- a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md +++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -# Input Needed — CLE Freezing Screening Technical Reference Manual (v1.0) +# Input Needed — Concentrated Leak Erosion Freezing 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 933318a53..a5450110c 100644 --- a/src/docConfig.js +++ b/src/docConfig.js @@ -408,7 +408,7 @@ const docs = [ category: 'web-applications', software: 'system-response', doc_location: 'web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening', - doc_name: 'CLE Freezing Screening Technical Reference Manual', + doc_name: 'Concentrated Leak Erosion Freezing Screening Technical Reference Manual', active: true, draft: true, }, From c5ceaa153f6ae195a5a42bb6b11c326ac6191a0d 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 a5450110c..c2ac4d2a2 100644 --- a/src/docConfig.js +++ b/src/docConfig.js @@ -409,6 +409,7 @@ const docs = [ software: 'system-response', doc_location: 'web-applications/system-response/cle-freezing-screening', doc_name: 'Concentrated Leak Erosion Freezing Screening Technical Reference Manual', + sidebar_label: 'Concentrated Leak Erosion Freezing Screening', active: true, draft: true, },