My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR10687
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR10687
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:27:03 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:12:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1996083
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
1/29/1997
Doc Name
BOWIE RESOURCES LTDS RESPONSE TO GEOTECHNICAL COMMENT MEMORANDA OF JAN141997-3RD SUPPLEMENTAL
From
DMG
To
DAVE BERRY
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.
/
7
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
<br />Memo to Dave Berry <br />Bowie No. 2 Third Supplemental Response <br />page 4 <br /> <br />'...extensive detail will have to be provided to describe the collection and <br />diversion of these ground waters and the long term stabilization of the potentially <br />effected 80 foot high cut slopes and 50 foot high fill embankments. This will <br />constitute both a significant operational facility and reclaimed configuration design <br />challenge.' " <br />"In the conclusion of this additional geotechnical study, Maxim Technologies <br />states; 'We do not believe expansion of the reclaimed slope fill to be a concern <br />for the long term stability of the slopes.' This totally unsupported conclusion, which <br />appears in contradiction to Maxim's earlier statements will require specific <br />justification. I suspect, that under saturated (swollen) conditions these soils may <br />exhibit altered material strength characteristics. Further, the altered strength of the <br />swollen soils may significantly change the stability of reclaimed fills constructed of <br />these materials." <br />In support of MAXIM's conclusion, Mr. Stover presents his opinion of the two fold basis <br />for their statement within his January 21, 1997 submittal letter. Mr. Stover's first <br />justification is as follows: <br />(a) "As per Maxim ;s recommendations, the reclaimed fill is to be placed with a <br />mositure content at or above optimum moisture and compacted to at least 85% <br />of the maximum modified Proctor density. At optimum moisture, the majority of <br />the void space within the soil structure is filled with water so the soil will not have <br />a willingness to accept water and swell. Therefore, a fill placed to this <br />specification will not accept extenbsive mositure and therefore will not swell <br />enough to cause strength deterioration." <br />My experience, related above, leads me to disagree with Mr. Stover's scvenario for <br />expansive soil performance. In the short term, if carefully controled during placement, <br />sensitive soils can be compactedto 85% of the maximum modified Proctor density. In the <br />short term, many of these soils will perform acceptably. During the operation of the mine <br />when stringent maintenance of surface drainage is practiced, these soils may perform <br />acceptably. Following reclamation, however, under conditions of little or zero <br />maintenance, many of these fills will be exposed to increased moisture. Under saturated <br />or super-saturated conditions, these sensitive soils will experience the swell response <br />determined by MAXIM and reported within figures 8 through 13 in their July 10, 1997, <br />"Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study" (Section 2, Volume VII). In the worst case, <br />as depicted in figure 10 of this report, a soil exhibited an approximate 13% volumetric <br />expansion when saturated. If this were to occur within a backfilled soil wedge originally <br />placed at 85% relative density, the final expanded soil density might <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.