Laserfiche WebLink
addition, Test Nos. 16 and 18 have water contents that would exceed the allowable value for one <br />Proctor, but not the other. <br />Please evaluate the water content test results, as reported for Test Nos. 11 and 16-18, and <br />provide the Division with justification for the acceptance of any results which were outside <br />the design parameters. <br />Response: In some cases, compaction was carried out at moisture content slightly higher <br />than specified. However, in all such cases the compacted density achieved was <br />also higher than specified. Although being slightly wet reduces the potential for <br />adverse changes in soil strength or permeability upon saturation, that effect is <br />minimal for results this close to optimum moisture and is more than offset by the <br />higher densities achieved. <br />Section 28 Pond <br />Figure IA-3 <br />13) Not all of the borrow samples analyzed in the laboratory met the qualifications described in the <br />originally-approved design The Acceptable Fill Materials note on the drawing was subsequently <br />amended to allow the field engineer to approve the use of other materials, following appropriate <br />laboratory testing. Given the limited availability of more desirable borrow material, this change <br />is understandable <br />14) Silty material is not normally desirable for the construction of earthen dam structures. Because <br />some of the available embankment material exhibited a low Plasticity Index, a drainage filter mat <br />was incorporated into the design. The Division agrees with the decision to add this feature to <br />reduce the potential for a piping-related failure to occur. <br />Construction Report <br />15) The text and Appendices Al and A2 refer to Proctor samples 5 - 10 and provide laboratory test <br />results for each. According to Attachment A3-11, an additional sample was collected on 9/27/07, <br />and would thereafter be referred to as Proctor No. 11. <br />Please modify the Construction Report and Appendices Al and A2 to incorporate <br />discussion and data pertaining to Proctor No. ll. <br />Response: Discussion and data pertaining to Proctor No. 11 were added throughout the text <br />and attachments. <br />16) The first paragraph on Page 2 reads: "Proctor Samples P9 and P10 were obtained from the <br />colluvial fan deposit borrow site permitted under TR-68. These two samples represent the <br />significant majority of the compacted fill." This statement is at odds with the test results reported <br />in Attachment A3. Of 14 compaction tests taken above the keyway, 1 test referred to 7P; 7 tests <br />referenced 8P, and 6 tests were compared with I IP <br />Neither P9 nor P10 were ever used for evaluation of fill placement. Please revise the text of <br />the Construction Report to be consistent with the information presented elsewhere in the <br />report. <br />Response: Report text has been modified as requested.