My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-10-21_REPORT - M1980244 (39)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Report
>
Minerals
>
M1980244
>
2016-10-21_REPORT - M1980244 (39)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/9/2017 10:56:36 AM
Creation date
12/22/2016 8:16:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980244
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
10/21/2016
Doc Name
SGVLF Phase I Cert Report - Structural Fill Method Specification
From
CC&V
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR87
Email Name
TC1
AME
ERR
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.
/
6
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
Squaw Gulch VLF <br />Method Specification <br />NewFields Job No. 475.0106.006 <br />September 20, 2016 <br /> <br /> <br />Page 1 <br /> MEMORANDUM <br />To: Ron Didonato – CC&V <br /> Ron Roberts – CC&V <br />From: Alyssa Wagner – NewFields <br /> Joe Hickey ‐ NewFields <br />Project: Squaw Gulch Valley Leach Facility (VLF) <br />Project No: 475.0106.006 <br />Subject: Structural Fill Compaction Method Specifications <br />Date: September 20, 2016 <br /> <br />Ames Construction (Ames) used Structural Fill (SF) to perform site grading during the <br />construction of the Squaw Gulch VLF project. All fills constructed with SF were placed using a <br />method specification that was developed during construction. The CQA Monitor observed and <br />approved two method specifications for the Squaw Gulch VLF project. The use of these method <br />compaction techniques was necessary as the fill materials used contained more than 30 <br />percent rock above the ¾‐inch sieve, classifying it as a rock fill. Based on site experience and <br />anticipated fill materials, method specifications were developed for a 10‐ton vibratory smooth <br />drum compactor and a smooth drum compaction attachment for a track mounted excavator. <br />Each method specification was developed by first preparing an area to receive material that <br />was firm, unyielding, and representative of actual fill placement conditions. The desired lift <br />thickness for the respective piece of equipment was then placed and moisture conditioned. The <br />lift size for the 10‐ton vibratory smooth drum compactor was two feet and the lift size for the <br />smooth drum attachment was one foot. The lift sizes were selected based on the compaction <br />that the piece of equipment would be doing. The 10‐ton vibratory smooth drum compactor <br />would be used to compact all two foot horizontal lifts, while the excavator with the smooth <br />drum attachment would only be used to compact the outer slope of the prepared subgrade. A <br />grid was surveyed and marked across each test pad by the Ames surveyor allowing the same <br />points to be checked repeatedly. One pass was made and the points were checked for any <br />change in elevation. This was repeated until less than ¾” elevation change was noted after at <br />least four consecutive passes. Two lifts were tested for each method specification and this <br />process was performed for each lift. It was found that in conjunction with the specified lift size, <br />9400 Station Street <br />Suite 300 <br />Lone Tree, CO 80124 <br /> <br />T: 720.508.3300 <br />F: 720.508.3339
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.