Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />t.ensitive to shale or soil content. This is due to the exttvmely large oont:ast <br />betWOCn the epecilic gravity o! coal and the yarrle ruck which ad~tt be !curd in <br />the waste. 72~ererore, a zather modest change, in the gauge rock or soil present <br />_ mepr have a very large influence on the tutu Weight. <br />1 Table 4 prwlAes a general ter!' or all density testing ravlts and organizes <br />the data with respect to looatiort aixl type or waste. O~,alderinq all test <br />zsoaitts for the entire waste pile, irtcltrli.ng values for both fine and oarirse , <br />waste, a mean percent a~pactian of 91.61 was obtained. 4he observed range was <br />frcm.61.4i bo 11].9 and the standat~d deviation was 12.61. Values obtained an <br />the lower benfi appeared to be eaflewhat hides than those on the upper bends. <br />Overall the coarse refuse wwld appear to be more highly ocmpacted than the fire <br />zcfuse {this is not surprising oortsiderirtq the pzcredures being utilized for <br />1 oonstrtictian). Ooarse waste showed a mean prsoent oa~xiction or 94.8 ahtile the <br />fine waste shooed a mean t oarpaetlon of 86.6=. Figure 4 e2tows a graphical <br />repreeentetian (Histogram) of density ~~ ~~ ~~~ by tYPe of test <br />(i.e., earl oxw samples versus tube sartgles). Figure S shoos the relationship <br />between oompaetion and depth below the groturi surface Lor the upper bench. '12tPS+e <br />would appear to be no identifiable correlation or trend with tc <br />_- oaspac+.icn and depth. <br />~__ <br />~_ <br />1 <br />