Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> <br />sereitive to shale or soil oontertt. Yttia is due to the ex'trpscely large axitrast <br />between the specific gravity of coal and the gan2e rock which ndc~t be lound in <br />the waste. 'therelore, a rather modest charge, in the gauge rock or soil present <br />may have a very large influerae an the tacit weic~t. <br />r Table 4 provides a general etmmary of all density testing results and organizes <br />the data with respect to lo~tian and type of writs. Don9iderinq all fast <br />results !or the entire waste pile, irtcludirg valuesa for both fine and coarse ._ <br />waste, a mean peroe»t arnpacticat of 91. fit w2is obtained. the oLscrved zange was <br />frrm 61.41 to 117.93 and t21e standard deviation was 12.fi4. Values obtained on <br />-~ the loaet bench appeared to be somewhat hider than those on the upper bends. <br />Overall the coarse reP~se would appear to be more highly oc~act~d than the tine <br />_ reflase {this is not surprising considering the procedures beirg utilized for <br />oonsrtL'uCtlon) • Coarse waste showed a mean Pmt faction of 94.81 while the <br />line waste showed a mean ~ odfpactlotl of 86.61. Figure 4 shows a graphical <br />r+epreeentati,at (histogram) of density tasting results separated by type of test <br />(i.a., sand Done sartples versus tube samples). Figure 5 shows the relatiorwhip <br />between aonpaction and depth below the proud surface for the upper bench. Zheze <br />world appear to be m identifiable correlation or Mend with respoct to <br />-- aonpactian aM depth. <br />-- <br />_~_ <br />__~ <br />