My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2013-07-26_REVISION - M2008078 (4)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M2008078
>
2013-07-26_REVISION - M2008078 (4)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/16/2021 6:05:37 PM
Creation date
7/31/2013 12:17:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2008078
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
7/26/2013
Doc Name
TR Submittal
From
GP Aggregates, LLC
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR2
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
CFSARE, INC. <br />Rapid drawdown of the reservoir was analyzed with a drawdown rate of 1 foot per day. Pore <br />pressures were computed using transient seepage analysis. Slope stability analyses were performed <br />during drawdown which generated a minimum factor of safety versus time plot. <br />SECTIONS ANALYZED <br />Two sections were chosen for analysis to capture stratigraphic differences across the site. Boring <br />3T-B9 at Station 31-4-52 was chosen to represent areas within the site covered by relatively deep <br />sand and gravel deposits. This section contains a relatively deep deposit of permeable soil and <br />represents areas where seepage potential is expected to be the highest. This section was analyzed <br />for both steady state seepage and slope stability during rapid drawdown. <br />Boring JT-B12 at Station 44+60,39 was chosen to represent areas within the site covered by <br />relatively deep clay deposits. Because the clay soils were assigned the lowest shear strength <br />values, this section will represent areas where the risk of slope instability is the highest during rapid <br />drawdown. This section was analyzed for slope stability during rapid drawdown. <br />Bedrock and groundwater elevations were judged to be relatively stable across the site and were <br />not significant factors in the choice of sections for analysis. For conservatism, a groundwater <br />elevation located at the top of the gravel/sand layer was used in our analyses. <br />MATERIAL PROPERTIES <br />Hydraulic conductivity values for analysis were developed. For the weathered shale bedrock, <br />hydraulic conductivity values were based on the Packer test results performed in Borings JT-61, JT- <br />B3, 3T-B5, JT-B7, 3T-B9, JT-B 11, and 3T-B13. The results are presented in Table 2. <br />TABLE 2. Packer Test Results <br />Boring <br />K (cm/sec) <br />4 Layer (feet below <br />ground level) <br />IT-61 <br />T 72-89 <br />IT-B3 <br />8.46 x 10-' <br />72.5-82.5 <br />JT-65 <br />0-5 <br />f <br />70-83 <br />JT -B7 <br />1.44 x 10-5 <br />76.5 — 85.5 <br />JT-B9 <br />9.53 x 10-' <br />69-76 <br />IT -B11 <br />9,74 x 10-' <br />72-84 <br />JT-B13 <br />0 <br />72-90 <br />For sand, clay, and gravel, hydraulic conductivity values were based on Seepage, Drainage, and <br />Flow Nvtq, 3rd Edition by Cedergren. For the slurry cutoff wall, the hydraulic conductivities of 1x10 - <br />5 and IX10-7 were evaluated. Presumptive ratios of horizontal to vertical hydraulic conductivity for <br />each material were assigned as found in the USACE/CA DWR guidance document. <br />The unit weight, cohesion, and friction angles of the materials encountered are estimated values <br />based on published literature and our experience in the area. <br />1;.124 Gr Ranches Wmo 0-1.2 1 . 1303.21 . 13 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.