M E M O R A N D U M 4 that the MSZ was hydraulically significant it was reintroduced for the definition of the water zones. 2.2 Hydraulic disconnection and hydraulic conductivity Disconnectivity across boundary structures is shown by 3multilevel piezometers that intersect the MSZ, FWSZ and F1 boundary structures. An example of disconnection is shown in Figure 3 for the FWSZ. Hydrograph series across the MSZ and F1 are given in the Appendix. Disconnection is highlighted by different pressure responses and different degrees of drawdown below and above the boundary structure. The other boundary structures (AM, F6 and F2) were not intersected by any multilevel piezometers. Figure 3: Hydrograph for GT1 that intersects the Foot Wall Shear Zone between P2 and P3. Hydraulic connectivity within zones is highlighted by similar pressure responses for all piezometers within that zone. This is highlighted for Zone 5 in Figure 4. The degree of similarity between the hydrographs of piezometers within one zone (under consideration of proximity) gives an indication of the hydraulic conductivity within each zone. An example of this can be seen by comparing the hydrographs in Zone 5 (Figure 4) and Zone 3 (Figure 5). While pressure changes are shown immediately and with the same magnitude in all hydrographs in Zone 5, the changes in Zone 3 propagate with a time lag of between 6 and 12 hours and with a dampening in magnitude. This highlights larger hydraulic conductivity in Zone 5 than in Zone 3. Note that the time record, and hence the time scale, is much larger for Zone 3 (4 years) than for zone 5 (3 month).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjE2NDg3