Laserfiche WebLink
stnl tlr~nerox ieiecopier ~~ucu i-iu-aa , ro•Jw JUJU 1'JJLLJ~ JVJ uu., ~i~„ w ~ <br />• <br />To: lb,u-ari 9lrestha, Assistant Flar-ager W.F.A. <br />Ft~om: Tin Qw~rvick, F}nrirormental Goardinatar <br />Date: January 5th, 1994 <br />9ubJect;Roller Compaction Study on Deeexado Nine Refuse <br />Area 1. <br />Western FLtele-Utah Inc. conducted n roller compaction study <br />on Refuse Area 1 on August 15,1967. A total of 3 test plot9 <br />were established on a freshly slm'~ on foot uncampncted lift <br />of refuse material. Three scenarios for oom~pnction mere <br />tested as follows; <br />l~II~O: <br />Test Plotikl Smooth Drum Vibratory Roller- Rolled 2 Times <br />without Vibration Unit Operating. <br />Test Plot ~k2 :imooth Drum Vibratory Roller-Rolled 2 Times <br />ove¢- plot area with vibrntar unit an. <br />Teat Plot dt3 ~nooth IA"vm Vila'atcuy Roller Rolled 3 Times <br />Vibratory unit off. <br />RFSlI1.T3: <br />The Vibrator Unit would tend to increase compaction of the <br />refuse by squeezing alt additional moisture adhering to the <br />refuse material and thereby incr~eaeing compaction. Compaction <br />data obtained shoved compaction vas met on all 4 samples in <br />the test Plot $2 area (Rolled twice with vibrator unit onl. <br />Test Plots ikl and ~3 failed compaction teats far 90 percent <br />of Proctor, shoving that the vibr~atar unit must be oparatiry <br />duric~g operation of the compactor roller machine, even if the <br />area if rolled 3 times. The best test $2 showed that refuse <br />lifts were compacted properly by smooth drimm rolling the ar+e8 <br />2 times with .the vibrntar unit switched ~. This pcrocedia^e <br />vas followed during operation compaction of the Refuse Area <br />1, 2/3 ord 4. <br />CC: Jeff Dubbert, Chief F}igineer <br />Wayne Heilmann, 9trc'face 3uperinterdant <br />File <br />