05.01.2013 Views

Ontario Power Generation's Response to the Joint Review

Ontario Power Generation's Response to the Joint Review

Ontario Power Generation's Response to the Joint Review

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Serge Clement 1011170042-TM-G2100-0001-01<br />

Tetra Tech December 23, 2011<br />

circular hole in an infinite medium and take in<strong>to</strong> account three zones of different hydraulic conductivity, i.e., <strong>the</strong><br />

concrete liner; <strong>the</strong> grouted zone and <strong>the</strong> in situ rock (see Appendix B). The head difference between <strong>the</strong> far<br />

boundary (Lake Huron – approx. 1000 m from <strong>the</strong> shaft) and <strong>the</strong> shaft is assumed <strong>to</strong> be equivalent <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

hydrostatic pressure <strong>to</strong> ground surface, which, for <strong>the</strong> lower formations, does not take in<strong>to</strong> account <strong>the</strong> depressurization<br />

of <strong>the</strong> formations above <strong>the</strong>m, making <strong>the</strong> estimates conservative.<br />

It has also been assumed that <strong>the</strong> hydraulic conductivities of <strong>the</strong> in situ rock as well as <strong>the</strong> grouted rock will not<br />

change after a seismic event. The rationale behind this assumption is based on <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> rock formations<br />

are under a compressive stress state which is considerably higher than <strong>the</strong> stress changes induced by a seismic<br />

event. Therefore, no tensile stresses will be present which could ei<strong>the</strong>r open existing fractures or create new<br />

ones.<br />

7/10

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!