Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />' Soil Types (cont.): <br />Soil Types Permeability Ranae (cm/sec) <br />' Very Fine Sands, Organic ~ <br />Inorganic Silts, Mixtures of 10-} to 101 <br />Sand Silt and Clay, Stratified <br />' Clay Deposits, Glacial Ti11, etc. <br />The permeability rates obtained from the bailing program <br />' indicate good to moderate drainage capacity. However, subsequent <br />sections of this report will show that the pile appears to contain <br />a number of different water bearing zones vertically separated by <br />less pervious boundaries. It must be recognized that the results <br />' of bailing and recovery monitoring only reflect the permeability of <br />the more pervious zones encountered. It must be expected that <br />certain zones exist which exhibit substantially lower <br />' permeabilities. Thus, the results of transmissivity and <br />permeability calculations made here can only be taken to represent <br />the general permeability of certain 'zones' within the pile. <br />' Because of apparent boundary conditions, the results of the <br />permeability and transmissivity rates cannot be used to develop a <br />detailed model of drainage characteristics within the pile. The <br />results do however, tend to reinforce the notion that the pile as <br />' a whole is highly heterogeneous, as the permeability rates obtained <br />vary by as much as two orders of magnitude. <br />' Bailing and monitoring of wells P-1, P1-T1 and P1-T2 <br />indicated that a minor connection exists between these wells. Rs <br />was seen in the Phase I piezometer evaluation wells P-1 and P1-T1 <br />' have consistently measured the same or nearly same piezometric <br />surface. This indicated that a connection between them exists or <br />that they both intercept and are controlled by the same aquifer. <br />During drawdown of well P-1, the water level in wells P1-T1 and <br />' P1-T2 were monitored to confirm this apparent connection. <br />Approximately 212-gallons of water were removed from well P-1 which <br />represented a drawn down of 7.35-feet from its original water <br />' surface level. Given well P1-T1's location, in close proximity to <br />well P-1, it was expected that a significant drawdown effect could <br />be measured in well P1-T1 during P-1 drawdown. Though a small <br />' amount of drawdown was realized (well P1-T1 dropped approximately <br />0.3-foot in response to the 7.35-foot drop in well P-1, 30-feet <br />away) it was quite small and seems to indicate that a less pervious <br />boundary exists between these wells. Another interesting <br />observation was made at well P1-T2. This well's water surface <br />increased by 0.04-foot during the 7.35-foot drawdown of well P-1. <br />This may have been a result of water entering the well by being <br />' drawn over a boundary layer at a higher gradient than existed prior <br />to bailing. In any event, there does not appear to be a well <br />established connection between these three wells as bailing and <br />' monitoring of the other companion wells returned similar results. <br />' 3 <br /> <br />