CONSTRUCTION METHODS ASSESSMENT

FOR

COMPACTED SALT PANEL CLOSURES

December 2012

NUCLEAR WASTE PARTNERSHIP LLC

Ben Zimmerly

Tami Moffatt

John Zavicar IV
i 

INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1

2. SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 1

3. LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................................................. 5 

4. FIELD TESTING ................................................................................................................................ 7 

 4.1. Location ....................................................................................................................................... 7 

 4.2. Equipment ................................................................................................................................... 7 

 4.3. Scenario 1 .................................................................................................................................... 8

 4.3.1. Lower Zone ....................................................................................................................... 8

 4.3.2. Upper Zone ....................................................................................................................... 10

 4.3.3. Construction Time ............................................................................................................ 13

 4.4. Scenario 2 .................................................................................................................................... 13

 4.4.1. Lower Zone ....................................................................................................................... 13

 4.4.2. Upper Zone ....................................................................................................................... 16

 4.4.3. Construction Time ............................................................................................................ 17

 4.5. Scenario 3 .................................................................................................................................... 18

4.5.1. ROM Salt Placement ...................................................................................................... 18

4.5.2. Construction Time ............................................................................................................ 19

5. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 20 

FIGURES:

 Figure 1. Compacted Salt Test Area Plan and Cross Section 

 Figure 2. LHD Placing ROM Salt On Lower Zone Lift

 Figure 3. Walk-Behind Roller Compactor Compacting Lower Zone Lift

 Figure 4. Fletcher With Push-Plate Attachment

 Figure 5. Fletcher Compacting Upper Zone 

TABLES: 

Table 1 - Scenario 1 Lower Zone Moisture/Density

Table 2 - Scenario 1 Upper Zone Moisture/Density

Table 3 - Scenario 1 Moisture/Density by Position in the Upper Zone

Table 4 - Scenario 2 Lower Zone Moisture/Density

Table 5 - Scenario 2 Upper Zone Moisture/Density

Table 6 - Scenario 3 Moisture/Density by Position in the Lift
ii

APPENDIX A 

1. Laboratory Test Reports for The Nuclear Density Testing and 

Sand-Cone Testing Performed Prior To The Actual Field Testing

2. Laboratory Test Reports For the Sieve Analysis Performed On 

The ROM Salt Used For The Proctor Evaluation And On The 

ROM Salt Used For The Field Testing

3. Proctor Evaluation Data

APPENDIX B-1 

Scenario 1

1. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment A – 

Lower Zone Lift Placement Information

2. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment B – 

Lower Zone Lift Testing Results 

APPENDIX B-2 

Scenario 2

1. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment A – 

Lower Zone Lift Placement Information

2. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment B – 

Lower Zone Lift Testing Results 

APPENDIX C-1 

Scenario 1

1. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment C – 

Upper Zone Lift Placement Information

2. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment D – 

Upper Zone Lift Placement Information

APPENDIX C-2 

Scenario 2

1. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment C – 

Upper Zone Lift Placement Information

2. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment D – 

Upper Zone Lift Placement Information

APPENDIX C-3 

Scenario 3

1. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment C – 

ROM Salt Placement Information

2. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment D – 

ROM Salt Placement Information
iii

APPENDIX D-1 

Scenario 1 

1. The Laboratory Test Reports For The Nuclear Density 

 Testing Performed On the Lifts Of The Lower Zone

2. The Laboratory Test Reports For The Sand-Cone 

Testing Performed On the Lifts Of The Lower Zone

APPENDIX D-2 

Scenario 2

1. The Laboratory Test Reports For The Nuclear Density 

 Testing Performed On the Lifts Of The Lower Zone

APPENDIX E-1 

Scenario 1

1. The Laboratory Test Reports For The Nuclear Density 

Testing Performed On the lifts Of The Upper Zone

2. The Laboratory Test Reports For The Sand-Cone 

Testing Performed On the Lifts Of The Upper Zone

APPENDIX E-2 

Scenario 2

1. The Laboratory Test Reports For The Nuclear Density 

Testing Performed On the lifts Of the Upper Zone

APPENDIX E-3 

Scenario 3

1. The Laboratory Test Reports For The Nuclear Density 

Testing Performed On the ROM Salt Placement

APPENDIX F-1 

Scenario 1

1. The Summary Sheets For The Lower Lift Placement, 

Compaction And Down Time

2. The Summary Sheets For The Upper Lift Placement, 

Compaction And Down Time

3. The Summary Sheet For The Lower And Upper Lift

Moisture/Density Data
iv

APPENDIX F-2 

Scenario 2

1. The Summary Sheets For The Lower Lift Placement, 

Compaction And Down Time

2. The Summary Sheets For The Upper Lift Placement, 

Compaction And Down Time

3. The Summary Sheet For The Lower And Upper Lift

Moisture/Density Data

APPENDIX F-3 

Scenario 3

1. The Summary Sheets For ROM Salt Placement And Down Time

2. The Summary Sheet For The Moisture/Density Data

APPENDIX G

1. The Data Sheet For The Walk-Behind Vibratory Roller 

Compactor Used To Compact The Lower Lifts

2. The Data Sheet For The LHD Used To Place The Lower 

And Upper Lifts.

3. The Data Sheet For The Fletcher Scaler Used To Push ROM

Tight To Back And To Compact Upper Lifts
Page 1 of 25

1. INTRODUCTION

In 2011, a new panel closure system (PCS) design was proposed to close the hazardous waste 

disposal units at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The proposed PCS, referred to as the WIPP 

Panel Closure (WPC), consisted of two barriers (i.e., either two standard bulkheads or one standard 

bulkhead and one block wall, if a block wall was previously installed) and emplacement of a 

minimum of 100 feet of compacted run-of-mine (ROM) salt between the two barriers. The 

proposed ROM salt PCS design called for emplacing three distinct zones ranging in compaction from 

85% to 70% of the in-situ density of salt. ROM salt densities are reported as a percentage of the insitu density of salt which is assumed to be 135 pounds per cubic foot (SDD AU00).

Compaction of ROM salt in zones, per the proposed draft specifications, had not been performed at 

the WIPP. Concerns over the constructability of the WPC arose due to the limited size of the drifts 

in which the WPC would be installed and the expected performance of the available equipment. A 

test plan was developed to demonstrate if the WPC could be constructed in accordance with the 

proposed compaction specifications using equipment currently at the WIPP or equipment that is 

readily available by renting or leasing. The proposed design was modified from three distinct 

horizontal layers to two zones. A lower zone was placed horizontally up to a height that could safely 

accommodate the equipment and an upper zone placed diagonally up to the back. If the compaction 

specifications could not be met, then the test plan would identify what level of compaction could be 

achieved. And finally, the best practices for the construction of the WPC would be established. 

Three scenarios were developed for the test plan (Figure 1). Scenario 1 consisted of 1% (by weight) 

water added to the ROM salt and compaction of the material. Scenario 2 consisted of compaction 

of the ROM salt with no additional water added. Scenario 3 consisted of the ROM salt simply being 

placed and pushed up tight to the back without adding water or compaction.

The test plan also included laboratory testing to determine the moisture/density properties of the 

ROM salt used for this demonstration.

This report presents the data from the laboratory testing, a description of the emplacement and 

compaction methodology; and the moisture/density testing results for all three scenarios. 

2. SUMMARY

2.1. Laboratory Testing

Sieve analysis, moisture determination and proctor evaluations were performed in the lab to 

determine the characteristics of the ROM salt used in the field testing. Gradational analysis 

indicates that about 9% of the ROM salt sample was greater than 3 inches, 7% passed the #80 

screen, and about 3% passed the #200 screen. The natural moisture content of the ROM salt 

averaged 0.4%. The results of a modified proctor evaluation, using a 6 inch diameter mold, 
Page 2 of 25

produced a maximum density of about 108 to 109 pounds per cubic foot (80% to 81% of the density 

of in-situ salt) with optimum moisture of between 2.5% and 4.5%. The maximum density using a 4

inch diameter mold was a bit lower at about 107 pounds per cubic foot (79% of the density of in-situ 

salt) and the optimum moisture was higher at about 6%. The field testing showed that Scenario 1 

and Scenario 2 were able to achieve about 93% (101 pounds per cubic foot) of the maximum proctor 

density on the lower zone and about 78% (85 pounds per cubic foot) on the upper zone. Scenario 3 

field testing showed that the density achieved was about 83% (90 pounds per cubic foot) of the 

maximum proctor density.

The ASTM nuclear density method used for moisture/density determination was evaluated for use 

in salt prior to field testing. The nuclear density method produced acceptable density values but did 

not produce reasonable percent moisture values when compared to moisture sampling by ASTM 

D2216. The nuclear density method used for field testing was backed up by occasional sand-cone 

tests. The moisture content was determined from grab samples taken near the nuclear density 

locations. 

2.2. Construction Scenarios

Scenario 1 consisted of ROM salt with 1% water added and compacted into two zones; a lower zone 

consisting of 6 inch thick horizontal lifts and an upper zone consisting of 12 inch thick diagonal lifts. 

The lower zone was 4 feet thick and the upper zone was 8.5 feet thick. The thicknesses of the lower 

and upper zone were based on the operational clearance required for the equipment used to 

emplace and compact the ROM salt. The density achieved for either zone did not reach the 

proposed compaction specification. Density measurements, at select locations, were taken after 

multiple compaction passes to determine a correlation between density and compaction effort. 

A load-haul-dump (LHD) was used to place each lift of the lower zone and roughly smooth it out. A 

skid-steer loader was needed to get a uniform lift thickness of 6 to 8 inch. Placing the lifts with a 

consistent and uniform thickness proved challenging. The walk-behind roller compactor was 

awkward to maneuver but was simple to operate.

As anticipated, on the upper zone, the LHD could place ROM salt to within about 18 to 24 inches of 

the back. A modified Fletcher scaler with the push-plate attachment, worked well to push the ROM 

salt tight to the back. The slope of each lift, on the upper zone, was about 30 degrees once 

emplacement and compaction was completed. The first seven lifts of the upper zone were 

compacted using the boom to push the material tight and then the push-plate was vibrated. This 

method was discontinued because the vibration caused material to loosen and slide down the slope 

of the lift. The remaining lifts were compacted by just using the boom to push the push-plate into 

the lift. 

Water was added to the ROM salt using an adjustable nozzle set to deliver 20 gallons per minute

and timing the length of application based on the cubic yards of ROM salt in each lift. Results from 

moisture sampling showed that this method was fairly consistent. For the lower zone after six 
Page 3 of 25

compaction passes the moisture averaged about 1.4% and for the upper zone the moisture 

averaged about 1.3%. The natural moisture for ROM salt was determined to be 0.25% to 0.5%.

The average dry density achieved for the lower zone after six compaction passes was about 75% of 

the in-situ density of salt. The draft specification called for 85%. The average dry density for the 

upper zone after one compaction pass was about 63% of the in-situ density of salt. At 3 feet, 5 feet 

and 7 feet from the back, the average dry density of the upper zone was about 63%, 64% and 62% 

respectively. The draft specification called for 80% for the lower portion of the upper zone and 70% 

for the upper portion of the upper zone.

A crew of two qualified miners was used to construct the lower and upper zones. This crew worked 

a 10 hour shift, 4 days per week. The lower zone was constructed at a rate of about 181 cubic feet 

per hour and the upper zone at a rate of 162 cubic feet per hour. These rates do not include 

equipment down time, time to perform support actives or testing. Accounting for equipment down 

time and support activities, the projected time to construct both an intake and exhaust WPC with a 

drift height of 12.5 feet would be about 61 shifts. Moisture/density testing would add an additional 

2 to 4 hours per set of tests.

Scenario 2 consisted of ROM salt compacted into two zones, the same as with Scenario 1, but no

additional water was added to the ROM salt. The lower zone was constructed with 6 inch thick 

horizontal lifts and the upper zone was constructed with 12 inch thick diagonal lifts. The lower zone 

was 4 feet thick and the upper zone was 8.5 feet thick. As with Scenario 1, the thickness of the 

lower and upper zones were based on the operational clearances required for the equipment used 

for emplacement and compaction of the ROM salt.

The lower zone of Scenario 2 was constructed using an LHD to place ROM salt for each lift. A skidsteer loader was needed to get a uniform lift thickness of 6 to 8 inches. Equipment operator 

proficiency improved from Scenario 1 to Scenario 2, but placing the lifts with a consistent and 

uniform thickness was still challenging. Three different compaction methods were used on the 

lower lifts; walk-behind roller compactor, LHD with empty bucket and LHD with full bucket. Each

method achieved about the same level of compaction.

On the upper zone, the LHD could place ROM salt to within about 18 to 24 inches of the back. The 

Fletcher with the push-plate attachment was used to push the ROM salt tight to the back. The slope 

of each lift on the upper zone was about 30 degrees once emplacement and compaction was 

completed. 

The average dry density achieved for the lower zone of Scenario 2 after four or six compaction 

passes was about 75% of the in-situ density of salt. The draft specification called for 85%. The 

average dry density for the upper zone of Scenario 2 after one compaction pass was about 63% of 

the in-situ density of salt. At 3 feet, 5 feet and 7 feet from the back, the average dry density of the 

upper zone was about 63%, 63% and 62% respectively. The draft specification called for 80% for the 

lower portion of the upper zone and 70% for the upper portion of the upper zone.
Page 4 of 25

The crew used to construct the lower zone and the upper zone of Scenario 2 consisted of two 

qualified miners. Construction work was performed on a 10 hour shift, 4 days per week. The lower

zone was constructed at a rate of about 283 cubic feet per hour and the upper zone was 

constructed at a rate of 239 cubic feet per hour. These rates do not include equipment down time 

and support activities or testing. The construction rates for Scenario 2 are significantly better than 

those achieved during Scenario 1 and are attributable to an improved equipment operator 

proficiency placing and compacting the lifts. Accounting for equipment down time and support 

activities, the projected time to construct both an intake and exhaust WPC with a drift height of 12.5 

feet would be about 42 shifts. Moisture/density testing would add an additional 2 to 4 hours per set 

of tests.

Scenario 3 consisted of ROM salt, with no water added and no compaction, placed and pushed tight 

to the back. The ROM salt was emplaced with the LHD to a height within 18 to 24 inches of the 

back. Two to four buckets (7.20 to 14.40 cubic yards) of ROM salt were placed with the LHD, and 

then the Fletcher with the push-plate attachment was used to push the ROM salt tight to the back. 

An additional two to three feet of ROM salt was placed on the floor to enable the Fletcher to reach 

the top of the loosely placed ROM salt and push it tight to the back. One or two passes pushing up 

the ROM salt was necessary to get it tight to the back. The slope of the lifts after the ROM salt was 

pushed tight to the back was about 30 degrees.

The average dry density achieved for the loosely placed ROM salt of Scenario 3 was about 67% of 

the in-situ density of salt. At 3 feet, 5 feet and 8 feet from the back, the average dry density was 

about 66%, 68% and 66% respectively. 

A crew of two qualified miners was used to emplace the ROM salt of Scenario 3. This crew worked a 

10 hour shift for 5 days. This zone was constructed at a rate of about 690 cubic feet per hour. This 

rate does not include equipment down time and support actives or testing. Accounting for

equipment down time and support activities, the projected time to construct both an intake and 

exhaust WPC with a drift height of 12.5 feet would be about 15 shifts. Moisture/density testing 

would add an additional 2 to 4 hours per set of tests.

Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 produced very similar results. The dry density achieved in both scenarios 

for the lower zone was about 75% of the in-situ density of salt. Based on the results from Scenario 

2, both the walk-behind roller compactor and the LHD achieved the same compaction level. 

Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 also had similar results for the upper zone with a dry density of about 63%

of the in-situ density of salt achieved. Both scenarios did show a slight variation in dry density at 3 

feet, 5 feet and 7 feet from the back at 63%, 63% to 64% and 62% respectively.

Scenario 3 was similar to the upper zone on Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 in both construction 

technique and achievable compaction. The average dry density achieved for Scenario 3 was about 

67% of the in-situ density of salt. This is slightly higher than the 63% achieved by Scenario 1 and 

Scenario 2.
Page 5 of 25

All three scenarios were not able to achieve the proposed compaction specifications. But these 

scenarios did show what level of compaction can be achieved with the equipment currently

available at the WIPP and demonstrated techniques that could be used for the construction of the 

WPC.

The three scenarios provided an estimate on WPC construction time. The shortest construction 

time was for Scenario 3, which is the simplest to construct, at about 15 shifts to construct the intake 

and exhaust drift WPCs. For Scenario 2, the construction time for the WPCs would be about 42 

shifts and for Scenario 1 the construction time would be about 61 shifts. The construction of 

Scenario 1 and 2 are identical except that Scenario 1 adds 1% water by weight to the ROM salt. The 

Scenario 2 construction time is shorter than that of Scenario 1 primarily due to the improved 

equipment operator proficiency in placing and compacting both the lower zone and upper zone lifts.

3. LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory testing was performed by Pettigrew & Associates (Pettigrew), located in Hobbs, New 

Mexico. Pettigrew is a qualified supplier for Quality Control for the WIPP, accredited by the 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Materials Reference 

Laboratory (AMRL) and the AASHTO Cement and Concrete Research Laboratory (CCRL).

Sieve analysis, per ASTM C 136, was performed on the ROM salt used for proctor testing and the 

ROM salt that was used for the construction methods evaluation. The results of these sieve analysis 

are presented in Appendix A. SA-1 through SA-3 is the sieve analysis data on the material used for 

the proctor testing. SA-4 is the sieve analysis of the ROM salt used for the field demonstration. 

Both the proctor test ROM salt and construction ROM salt samples were taken from the same stock 

pile. When the proctor material was taken, large chunks were avoided. Whereas, the construction 

sample consisted of whatever size material was in the sample location. Of the construction ROM 

salt, 9% of the material was greater than 3 inches in size, of which occasionally pieces were up to 7 

to 9 inches in size. Of the finer material, only 7% passed the #80 screen and only 3.1% passed the 

#200 screen.

Moisture of the ROM salt was determined by ASTM D 2216 and averaged 0.36% with a high of 0.9% 

and a low approaching 0%.

Standard Proctor evaluations were performed in accordance with ASTM D-1557. The Proctor 

evaluation was used to determine the optimal moisture to achieve the maximum density. The 

moisture added during the performance of the evaluation was in the form of fresh water as opposed 

to brine because fresh water would also be used in the field assessment. Larger material that was 

inappropriate for the proctor mold size used was screened off prior to placement of material into 

the molds. 
Page 6 of 25

Two proctor evaluations were run using 6 inch molds and one evaluation using the 4 inch mold. 

Excess water bled from both the 4 inch and 6 inch molds once the moisture content was over 3%. A 

best-fit curve was generated from the data to determine the optimum moisture and maximum 

density. The maximum density for the 6 inch mold evaluations was between 108 to 109 pounds per 

cubic foot (80% to 81% of the density of in-situ salt). The optimum moisture varied significantly 

from about 2.5% and to about 4.5%. The evaluation, using the 4 inch mold, produced a maximum 

density of about 107 pounds per cubic foot (79% of the density of in-situ salt) with optimum 

moisture of about 6%. Appendix A contains a graph summarizing the proctor evaluations.

The optimum moistures produced by the proctor evaluations were not used in the field testing. 

Scenario 1 of the field testing called for the addition of 1% water to the ROM salt. This would give 

total moisture of between 1.25% and 1.5%. This is more in line with the plans for the WIPP shaft 

seals (SAND96-1326/1).

Moisture/density testing by the nuclear method is not common in salt. A small ROM salt pad was 

constructed near the test area to determine if the nuclear method would provide adequate results. 

The nuclear method results were compared to sand-cone and balloon density methods and 

standard moisture sampling. Technical problems were experienced with the sand-cone and balloon 

density methods. Only one sand-cone could be taken and no valid balloon tests were achieved. 

Several nuclear moisture/density tests were made after a trench calibration of the instrument was 

made. As anticipated, the nuclear method did not accurately determine moisture content. The 

nuclear density results were in good agreement with the sand-cone density determination. For the 

field moisture/density testing, the nuclear method was used for density and occasional sand-cone 

density tests were performed as a check. Table 1 in Appendix D-1 compares the density results by 

the nuclear and sand cone methods for scenario 1. Samples were collected at or near where the 

density tests were made to determine moisture content in the lab. Data from this testing can be 

found in Appendix A, Test No. SG 1 through SG 12 and SC 1.

Four nuclear density tests were made at the stock pile of ROM salt used to construct the lower and 

upper lifts. These tests were made to determine the density of the stock pile at different time 

periods and are reported as a percentage of the in-situ density of salt. Test SG 58 was at a portion 

of the stock pile that had been undisturbed for about two months; SG 59 was at a portion that was 

added to the stock pile four days earlier; and SG166 and SG167 were in ROM salt placed on the 

stock pile within an hour of the testing. Test SG 58 in the older portion of the stockpile showed a 

density of 71.9%. Test SG 59 in the newer portion of the stockpile showed a density of 68.1%. Test 

SG 166 and SG 167 in the youngest portion of the stockpile showed densities of 64% and 63% 

respectively. These tests seem to indicate that settling or self compaction of the stockpile occurs 

rapidly. The loose density of ROM salt is about 65%. The test data for SG 58, SG 59, SG 166 and SG 

167 can be found in Appendix A. Note that the densities for SG 58 and 59 are not corrected for 

moisture, whereas the densities for SG 166 and 167 are corrected for moisture.
Page 7 of 25

4. FIELD TESTING

4.1. LOCATION

The field testing was conducted in the southern portion of the WIPP underground adjacent to 

Panel 5 in the W-30 drift, between S-3310 and S-3650 and south of Bulkhead 506. Bulkhead 506 

was used to simulate the bulkhead portion of the proposed WPC. The drift width was about 16 

feet wide and the height was about 12.5 feet. The length of drift available for testing was

about 230 feet. 

4.2. EQUIPMENT

The following list of equipment was used in the field testing.

• Load-haul-dump (LHD) with 3.6 cubic yard bucket capacity

• Skid-steer loader

• Fletcher Scaler (modified with a push plate attachment)

• Walk-behind steel wheel vibratory roller compactor

• 500-gallon water tank

• Electric water pump

• 1 inch dia. Water hose

• Adjustable water nozzle

• Auxiliary Fan

• 30 inch dia. ventilation tubing

The LHD was the primary piece of equipment used to place ROM salt for the lifts for the lower 

zone and upper zone. The skid-steer loader was used to work the lower zone lifts to the desired 

thickness. Water was added to the ROM salt using the 500-gallon tank, water pump, hose and 

adjustable nozzle. The nozzle was adjusted to maintain a consistent flow rate of 20 gallons per 

minute. This rate also provided a good spray pattern. Compaction of the lifts of the lower zone 

was accomplished using a walk-behind steel wheel roller compactor or LHD. Information on the 

roller compactor, the LHD, and the Fletcher scaler can be found in Appendix G. On the upper 

zone, a push-plate attachment on the Fletcher scaler, was used to push the ROM salt tight to the 

back and to compact the material. The push-plate was fabricated in-house using 1 inch plate 

steel, 4 inch steel channel and 4 inch steel tubing and had a height and width of 2 feet. The 

auxiliary fan and ventilation tubing was set up in an exhausting configuration to provide fresh air 

and remove diesel smoke and dust from the work area.
Page 8 of 25

4.3. SCENARIO 1 

The test parameters for Scenario 1 were as follow. One percent water (by weight) was added 

to the ROM salt. Compaction of the lower zone was by the walk-behind roller compactor and 

compaction of the upper zone was by the Fletcher with the push-plate. 

Figure 1 shows the configuration of the test area. The lower zone was approximately 63 feet in 

length, 16 feet wide and 4 feet thick. A 2:1 slope was constructed for the lower zone on the end 

near the bulkhead. The upper zone was comprised of two areas. Towards the bulkhead, uncompacted ROM salt with no water added was placed to provide a “back-stop” for the ROM salt 

that would be placed and compacted for the remainder of the upper zone. The compacted 

portion of the upper zone was approximately 32 feet in length, 16 feet wide and 8.5 feet high. 

The slope angle on the upper zone was about 30 degrees after compaction of each lift.

4.3.1. LOWER ZONE

The lower zone was constructed using the LHD to place ROM salt in horizontal lifts of about 6 

inches thick. The LHD that was used had a capacity of 3.6 cubic yards of ROM salt per bucket and 

six buckets were required to get the lift thickness of 6 inches. The LHD could not provide an 

adequately uniform lift thickness, so the skid-steer loader was used to even out the lifts. After 

placement, compaction and testing of the second lift, a change was made to improve the water 

distribution through the thickness of the lift. Instead of the full six inches of ROM salt being 

placed, placement of the lift was split in two. About 3 inches of ROM salt would be placed, 

water added, another 3 inches placed and the final water added to the lift. It was a little easier 

for both the LHD and skid-steer loader to spread and evenly distribute the ROM salt in the 

thinner layers. Figure 2 shows the LHD placing ROM salt on a lower zone lift. Placement of 

each lift was challenging for the equipment operator and time consuming. The placement of 

each lift took an average of 2 hours and 12 minutes.

One percent water was added to the lifts either after the lift was placed or halfway through the 

placement. Based on the loose density of the ROM salt at 88 pounds per cubic foot, 2.85 gallons 

of water must be added per cubic yard to get 1% water added. For the six LHD buckets placed 

each lift, about 62 gallons of water would be required to get 1% added moisture. An adjustable 

nozzle was set to deliver 20 gallons per minute. The volume delivered by the nozzle was initially 

set and periodically checked by recording the time to fill a container of known volume. Water 

was added to each lift uniformly with the nozzle and timed to get the necessary volume. The 

time necessary to add water was about 3 minutes per lift. Moisture sample results are 

presented for the lower zone in Appendix B-1, Appendix D-1, and Appendix F-1. The average 

moisture for the compacted samples taken on the lower zone was 1.4%. The moisture content 

for ROM salt ranges from 0.25% to about 0.5%. 
Page 9 of 25

Most of the moisture results were similar, but the results of the last lift of the lower zone were 

significantly lower. This is likely because the last lift was completed on a Friday afternoon and 

moisture/density testing was not performed until the next Monday. The moisture content for 

these tests was much lower than the previous tests perhaps due to the ventilation passing 

through the test area causing the water to evaporate. The moisture for lift 7 averaged 0.3% 

which is within the natural range.

A walk-behind steel wheel vibratory roller compactor was used to compact the lifts of the lower 

zone. Specifications and data on the compactor are contained in Appendix G. Six compaction 

passes were made on each lift with moisture/density testing after two, four and six passes. The 

compaction passes were started at one rib and the compactor was run the length of the lift and 

back in the same path then shifted a half drum width and run the length and back again. This 

sequence was repeated until the opposite rib was reached. Figure 3 shows the roller compactor 

in use on a lift. Each set of two compaction passes averaged about 17 minutes and a set of six 

averaged about 51 minutes. 

The time to place, add water and compact a single lift averaged about 3 hours and 5 minutes.

Field testing of the lower zone was performed in accordance with ASTM standards for nuclear 

methods (ASTM D-6938) and for the sand-cone method (ASTM D-1556). Four density tests were 

made using the nuclear method. Generally, two tests were made along the centerline of the 

drift and two tests were made between the centerline of the drift and the rib. All four tests 

were performed in the middle third of the lift’s length. One to four moisture samples were 

taken at locations near the nuclear tests. The nuclear method results were not used for 

moisture content determination. Sand-cone tests were performed periodically as checks to the 

nuclear tests. The densities by the nuclear method and by sand-cone were in general 

agreement. 

Information on placement, compaction and moisture/density testing on the lower zone, is 

contained in Appendix B-1, Appendix D-1, and Appendix F-1. Table 1 summarizes the results 

from the lower zone.
Page 10 of 25

Table 1 - Scenario 1 Lower Zone Moisture/Density

Average Compactor 

Speed (ft/min)

Cumulative Number 

of Compaction Passes Moisture % Dry Density%* 

132 2 1.6 74.1

141 4 1.7 74.5

148 6 1.4 74.8

* Density reported as a percentage of the in-situ density of salt

The results show that the average achievable dry density on the lower zone was 74.8% after six 

compaction passes. The density does increase slightly as the number of compaction passes 

increases. The results also indicated that dividing the lift height in two and adding water to each 

half did not improve the compaction of the lifts. The actual densities achieved for the lower 

zone were significantly less than the proposed value of 85% of the in-situ density of salt. 

A moisture/density test (SG 78) was made on the last lift of the lower zone 25 days after the 

initial tests were performed. The test results were a density of 80.5% of the in-situ density of 

salt with moisture of 0.2%. The original density averaged 73.8% with moisture of 0.3%. The 

increase in density could be due to the combination of the operation of heavy equipment on the 

lift during the construction of the upper zone and settling of the material.

The height of the lower zone was determined by the operational clearance needed for the LHD. 

The height of the LHD to the top of the cab is about 7.5 feet, so an operational clearance of 8.5 

feet was maintained. The available operational clearance set the upper zone to 8.5 feet high 

and the lower zone to the difference from the total drift height. The height of the drift in the 

test area was 12.5 feet. In order to maintain the operational clearance, the thickness of the 

lower zone was about 4 feet.

4.3.2. UPPER ZONE

The upper zone was constructed using the LHD to place ROM salt, the Fletcher, with the pushplate, was used to push the ROM salt tight to the back and compact the material. Initially 

several feet of un-compacted ROM salt was placed tight to the back to provide a back-stop for 

the compacted lifts. The lifts of the upper zone were placed on a slope of about 30 degrees. 

This slope was the result of pushing the ROM salt tight to the back to create the back-stop. The 

LHD placed two buckets per lift. This resulted in a lift thickness of about 12 inches. The LHD 

could place the material to within about 18 to 24 inches of the back. An average of about 13 

minutes was needed to place the ROM salt on each lift. 
Page 11 of 25

Once the ROM salt was placed but not pushed up and compacted, water was added using the 

nozzle set to a volume of 20 gallons per minute. Two LHD buckets (7.2 cubic yards) required one 

minute of water to be added. The average moisture for the upper zone was about 1.3%. 

Pushing the ROM salt tight to the back and compacting the material tended to mix the water 

into the lift, but dry or very wet areas were common.

The Fletcher with the push-plate, was used to push the ROM salt tight to the back usually 

starting along the left rib and working to the right. Compaction of the upper zone lifts usually 

started in the upper left hand corner and worked across to the opposite rib by moving the plate 

about a foot, half of the plate width, each time. When the opposite rib was reached the plate 

would be moved back to the left rib and down about a foot and worked to the opposite rib. This 

cycle was followed until the bottom of the lift was compacted. Figure 4 shows the push-plate 

attachment for the Fletcher and Figure 5 shows the compaction on a lift of the upper zone.

Two methods of compaction were tried on the upper zone. The modified Fletcher had the pushplate attached to the jack-hammer head of the machine. By activating the jack-hammer, the 

push-plate could be vibrated like a plate compactor. For the first method, the boom was used 

to push the material tight and maintain pressure as the jack-hammer was activated for 5 

seconds to vibrate the push-plate. This method was used for lifts 1 through 7 of the upper lift. 

The method was discontinued because the vibration from the jack-hammer caused the adjacent 

ROM salt to loosen and slide down the slope. The remaining lifts were completed using only the 

Fletcher’s boom extension to push the push-plate into the slope. 

Pushing up and compacting the lifts of the upper zone with the jack-hammer action averaged 

about 76 minutes per lift. Pushing up and compacting the lifts of the upper zone by just pushing 

into the slope averaged about 53 minutes per lift. Originally two and three compaction passes 

per lift were planned. However, spending 2 to 3 hours compacting each lift was not 

operationally practical; thus, the additional compaction passes were not preformed.

Field testing of the upper zone was performed in accordance with ASTM standards for nuclear 

methods (ASTM D-6938) and for the sand-cone method (ASTM D-1556). Six density tests were 

made using the nuclear method. Generally two tests were made about 3 feet down from the 

back of the drift, two tests were made about 5 feet down from the back and two tests were 

made about 7 feet down from the back. The nuclear density tests varied from a few feet from 

the ribs to near the centerline of the drift. Moisture samples were taken at each nuclear density 

test. The nuclear method results were not used for moisture content determination. Sand-cone 

tests were taken periodically as checks to the nuclear tests. The densities achieved by the 

nuclear method and by sand-cone were in general agreement. 
Page 12 of 25

Appendix C-1, Appendix E-1 and Appendix F-1 contain information on placement, compaction 

and testing of the upper zone. The average dry density achieved using the push plate with 

vibration was 63.3% of the in-situ density of salt. The average dry density achieved by just 

pushing the material was 64.6% for lifts 13 through 19 but the average dropped to 63.3% by lift 

32.

Table 2 and Table 3 summarize the results of the upper zone.

Table 2 - Scenario 1 Upper Zone Moisture/Density

Compaction Type

Number of 

Compaction passes Moisture %

Dry Density %* 

Push-plate with 

5 seconds Vibration 1 1.1

63.3

Push Plate

1 1.4

63.3

* Density reported as a percentage of the in-situ density of salt

Table 3 - Scenario 1 Moisture/Density by Position in the Upper Zone

Distance from Back of 

Drift Moisture % Dry Density %* 

3 feet 1.2 63.4

5 feet 1.3 64.6

7 feet 1.4 61.5

* Density reported as a percentage of the in-situ density of salt

The results show that the average achievable dry density on the upper zone is 63.3% after one 

compaction pass whether or not the vibration was activated. The dry density does vary by the 

position in the upper zone. The middle has the highest density at 64.6% and surprisingly the 

lowest is close to the bottom of the zone at 61.5%. Close to the back the average was 63.4%. 

The proposed design called for 80% density in the lower half of the upper zone and 70% in the 

upper half of the upper zone. The actual average density achieved did not meet the proposed 

density.
Page 13 of 25

4.3.3. CONSTRUCTION TIME

The crew used to construct the lower zone and the upper zone consisted of two qualified 

miners. Construction work was performed on a 10 hour shift, 4 days per week. As part of the 

construction methods assessment, each process to construct the lower and upper zones was 

documented and the data collected can be found in Appendix F. Excluding down time, the time 

necessary to place, wet, and compact each lift of the lower zone averaged about 3 hours and 5 

minutes. This equates to about 181 cubic feet of lift constructed per hour. Excluding down 

time, the time necessary to place, wet, and compact each lift of the upper zone averaged about 

1 hour and 12 minutes. This equates to about 162 cubic feet of lift constructed per hour. In a 

10 hour shift, about 6.5 hours of work can be performed. About 80% or 5.2 hours per shift 

could be expected to be worked accounting for equipment down time and support work. 

Assuming the 5.2 hours per shift and the rates determined above, the time necessary to 

construct a WPC in an intake drift, that is 12.5 feet high and 20 feet wide, would be about 36 

shifts and in an exhaust drift, that is 12.5 feet high and 14 feet wide, would be about 25 shifts. 

The preceding construction time estimate does not include time necessary for moisture/density 

testing. For each set of tests, an additional 2 to 4 hours should be added to the total 

construction time.

4.4. SCENARIO 2

The test parameters for Scenario 2 were as follows. No water was added to the ROM salt. 

Six lifts of the lower zone were compacted by the walk-behind roller compactor and four lifts of 

the lower zone were compacted by the LHD. The lifts of the upper zone were compacted using 

the Fletcher with the push-plate attachment. 

Figure 1 shows the configuration of Scenario 2 in relation to the other two scenario test areas. 

The lower zone was approximately 33 feet in length, 16 feet wide and 4 feet thick. The upper 

zone was approximately 39 feet in length, 16 feet wide and 8.5 feet high. The slope angle on the 

upper zone was about 30 degrees after compaction of each lift.

4.4.1. LOWER ZONE

The ramp that was constructed to aid in the placement and compaction of the Scenario 1 ROM 

salt was removed prior to placement of the Scenario 2 lower lifts. The lower lifts were 

constructed using the LHD to place the ROM salt in horizontal lifts of about 6 inches thick. The 

LHD used had a capacity of 3.6 cubic yards of ROM salt per bucket and three buckets were 

required to get the lift thickness of 6 inches. As with Scenario 1, the LHD could not provide an 

adequately uniform lift thickness, so the skid-steer loader was used to even out the lifts. The 

placement of each lift took an average of 38 minutes. The placement of the lower lifts for 
Page 14 of 25

Scenario 2 took less time than in Scenario 1 because the length of the lower lift for Scenario 2 is 

about half that of Scenario 1, no water was added and operator proficiency was improved.

A walk-behind steel wheel vibratory roller compactor was used to compact the first six lifts of 

the lower zone. The compactor used was the same one used for Scenario 1 and the data on the 

compactor are contained in Appendix G. The last four lifts of the lower zone were compacted 

using the LHD. The LHD bucket was empty during compaction of two lifts and full during 

compaction of two lifts. The full LHD bucket adds about 4.3 tons to the weight of the LHD. 

Using either the compactor or LHD, six compaction passes were made on each lift. The 

compaction passes were started at one rib and the compactor/LHD was run the length of the 

lift and back in the same path then shifted about one foot and run the length and back again. 

This sequence was repeated until the opposite rib was reached. Each set of two compaction 

passes averaged about 8 minutes and a set of six averaged about 25 minutes. Using either the 

walk-behind roller compactor or the LHD, the compaction times were comparable. The 

compaction times are less for Scenario 2, because the length of the lift is about half that of 

Scenario 1.

Moisture/density testing was performed on selected lifts after two, four and six compaction 

passes. Density testing of the lower zone was performed in accordance with ASTM standard for 

nuclear methods (ASTM D-6938). The sand-cone method for determining density could not be 

used because the walls of the hole dug for the sand-cone test would collapse under the base 

plate. Four density tests were made after each set of two compaction passes. Generally, two 

tests were made along the centerline of the drift and two were made between the centerline of 

the drift and the rib. All four tests were performed on the middle third of the lifts length. 

Moisture samples were taken per ASTM D-2216 near the location of each of the density tests. 

The nuclear method results were not used for moisture content determination.

Information on placement, compaction and moisture/density testing on the lower zone, is 

contained in Appendix B-2, Appendix D-2 and Appendix F-2. Table 4 summarizes the results 

from the lower zone.
Page 15 of 25

Table 4 - Scenario 2 Lower Zone Moisture/Density

Roller Compactor

Average Compactor 

Speed (ft/min)

Cumulative Number 

of Compaction Passes Moisture %

Dry Density%* 

98.0 2 0.4 74.6

73.5 4 0.4 75.5

100.2 6 0.4 74.7

LHD - Empty Bucket

Average Compactor 

Speed (ft/min)

Cumulative Number 

of Compaction Passes Moisture %

Dry Density%* 

93.5 2 0.1 73.8

93.5 4 0.0 73.0

83.1 6 0.3 74.9

LHD – full bucket

Average Compactor 

Speed (ft/min)

Cumulative Number 

of Compaction Passes Moisture %

Dry Density%* 

95.0 2 0.4 72.5

83.1 4 0.4 75.0

95.0 6 0.4 75.3

* Density reported as a percentage of the in-situ density of salt

The results show that using either the roller compactor or LHD with loaded bucket, the 

achievable dry density was about 75% after four compaction passes. After six compaction 

passes, the LHD with an empty bucket was able to achieve an average dry density of just under 

75%. The actual densities achieved for the lower zone were significantly less than the proposed

value of 85%.

The average compactor speed is lower in Scenario 2 than in Scenario 1. This is likely 

attributable to the shorter length of the Scenario 2 lifts. The proportion of time repositioning 

the compactor is greater relative to the time to travel the length of the lift.
Page 16 of 25

The height of the lower zone was determined by the operational clearance needed for the LHD. 

The height of the LHD to the top of the cab is about 7.5 feet, so an operational clearance of 8.5 

feet was maintained. The available operational clearance set the upper zone to 8.5 feet high 

and the lower zone to the difference from the total drift height. The height of the drift in the 

test area was 12.5 feet. In order to maintain the operational clearance, the thickness of the 

lower zone was about 4 feet.

4.4.2. UPPER ZONE

The upper zone was constructed using the LHD to place ROM salt, the Fletcher, with the pushplate attachment, was used to push the ROM salt tight to the back and compact the material. 

The upper zone of Scenario I was used as the back-stop for the upper zone of Scenario 2. The 

lifts of the upper zone were placed on a slope of about 30 degrees. This slope matches that of 

the upper zone of Scenario 1. The LHD placed two buckets per lift. This resulted in a lift 

thickness of about 12 inches. The LHD could place the material to within about 18 to 24 inches 

of the back. An average of about 13 minutes was needed to place the ROM salt on each lift. 

This time is similar to that of Scenarios 1 and the upper zone dimensions for both scenarios are 

similar.

The Fletcher with the push-plate was used to push the ROM salt tight to the back usually 

starting along the left rib and working to the right. Compaction of the upper zone lifts usually 

started in the upper left hand corner and worked across to the opposite rib by moving the plate 

about a foot, half of the plate width, each time. When the opposite rib was reached the plate 

would be moved back to the left rib and down about a foot and worked to the opposite rib. This 

cycle was followed until the bottom of the lift was compacted. Figure 4 shows the push-plate 

attachment for the Fletcher and Figure 5 shows the compaction of a lift of the upper zone.

The upper zone lifts were compacted using the Fletcher’s boom extension to push the pushplate into the slope. The push plate was not vibrated during compaction because of the 

adverse effects it had on the compaction of the Scenario 1 upper zone lifts.

Pushing up and compacting the lifts of the upper zone averaged about 43 minutes. Improved 

operator proficiency reduced the average compaction time in Scenario 2 from that of Scenario 

1. Only one compaction pass was performed per lift. Additional compaction passes would not 

be operationally practical due to the time necessary to perform each pass.

Moisture/density testing was performed in accordance with ASTM standards for nuclear 

methods (ASTM D-6938). As with the lower zone, the sand-cone method for determining 

density could not be used because the walls of the test hole would collapse under the base 

plate. Six density tests were made on selected lifts. Generally two tests were made about 3 

feet down from the back of the drift, two tests were made about 5 feet down from the back and 
Page 17 of 25

two tests were made about 7 feet down from the back. The nuclear density tests varied from a 

few feet from the ribs to near the drift centerline. Moisture samples were taken in accordance 

with ASTM D-2216 at each nuclear density test. The nuclear method results were not used for 

moisture content determination. 

Appendix C-2, Appendix E-2 and Appendix F-2 contain information on placement, compaction 

and testing of the upper zone. The average dry density achieved was 62.5% of the in-situ 

density of salt. 

Table 5 summarizes the results of the Scenario 2 upper zone.

Table 5 - Scenario 2 Upper Zone Moisture/Density

Moisture %

Dry Density %* 

Upper Zone Lifts Average 0.4 62.5

Distance from Back of Drift

Moisture %

Dry Density %* 

3 feet 0.4 62.9

5 feet 0.5 63.1

7 feet 0.3 61.5

* Density reported as a percentage of the in-situ density of salt

The results show that the average achievable dry density on the upper zone is about 62.5% after 

one compaction pass. The dry density does vary by the position in the upper zone. The middle 

has the highest density at 63.1%. The lowest density is near the bottom of the zone at 61.5%. 

Close to the back the average was 62.9%. The proposed design called for 80% density in the 

lower half of the upper zone and 70% in the upper half of the upper zone. The actual average

density achieved did not meet the proposed density.

4.4.3. CONSTRUCTION TIME

The crew used to construct the lower zone and the upper zone of Scenario 2 consisted of two 

qualified miners. Construction work was performed on a 10 hour shift, 4 days per week. As 

part of the construction methods assessment, each process to construct the lower and upper 

zones was documented and the data collected can be found in Appendix F-2. Excluding down 

time, the time necessary to place and compact each lift of the lower zone averaged about 1 
Page 18 of 25

hour and 2 minutes. This equates to about 283 cubic feet of lift constructed per hour. 

Excluding down time, the time necessary to place and compact each lift of the upper zone 

averaged about 49 minutes. This equates to about 239 cubic feet of lift constructed per hour. 

In a 10 hour shift, about 6.5 hours of work can be performed. About 80% or 5.2 hours per shift 

could be expected to be worked accounting for equipment down time and support work. 

Assuming the 5.2 hours per shift and the rates determined above, the time necessary to 

construct a WPC in an intake drift, that is 12.5 feet high and 20 feet wide, would be about 24 

shifts and in an exhaust drift, that is 12.5 feet high and 14 feet wide, would be about 18 shifts. 

The preceding construction time estimate does not include time necessary for moisture/density 

testing. For each set of tests, an additional 2 to 4 hours should be added to the total 

construction time.

4.5. SCENARIO 3

The test parameters for Scenario 3 were as follow. An LHD was used to emplace ROM salt and 

the Fletcher with the push-plate attachment was used to push the ROM salt tight to the back.

Figure 1 shows the configuration of the test area and the relation to the other two scenarios. 

The zone was approximately 44 feet in length, 16 feet wide and 12.5 feet high. The upper (back) 

portion of the zone was approximately 37 feet in length, 16 feet wide and 12.5 feet high. The 

slope angle on the zone was about 35 degrees after each lift was pushed tight to the back. 

4.5.1. ROM SALT PLACEMENT

An LHD was used to emplace buckets of ROM salt as high as possible. A typically lift was 

constructed with the LHD placing four buckets of ROM salt and then pushing the ROM salt to 

within 18 to 24 inches of the back. The LHD that was used had a bucket capacity of 3.6 cubic 

yards. After the LHD had placed the ROM salt for each lift, the Fletcher with the push-plate 

attachment was use to push the ROM salt tight to the back. But it was apparent after the first 

buckets were emplaced that the Fletcher could not effectively reach the back from the original 

floor. To reduce the distance the Fletcher had to reach the back, two to three feet of ROM salt 

was placed to build up the floor. Initially seven buckets were placed on the floor and later two to 

four buckets were emplaced as needed to allow the Fletcher to maintain the height needed to

reach the back.

The Fletcher was used to push the ROM salt tight to the back usually starting along the left rib 

and working to the right. Most of the time this was done with one pass across the face. If the 

slope became steeper, then two passes were made to keep the salt from sliding down the slope. 

The placement of each lift took an average of 30 minutes.
Page 19 of 25

Field testing of the zone was performed in accordance with ASTM standards for nuclear 

methods (ASTM D-6938). Six density tests were made using the nuclear method. Generally two 

tests were made about 3 feet down from the back of the drift, two tests were made about 5 feet 

down from the back and two tests were made about 8 feet down from the back. The nuclear 

density tests varied from a few feet from the ribs to near the drift centerline. Moisture samples 

were taken at each nuclear density test. The nuclear method results were not used for moisture 

content determination. The sand-cone method for determining density could not be used 

because the walls of the hole dug for the sand-cone test would collapse under the base plate.

Information on placement and moisture/density testing on the zone is contained in Appendix C3, Appendix E-3 and Appendix F-3. Table 6 summarizes the results from the Scenario 3 lifts. 

Table 6 - Scenario 3 Moisture/Density by Position in the Lift

Distance from Back of 

Drift Moisture % Dry Density %* 

3 feet 0.5 66.5

5 feet 0.4 68.0

8 feet 0.4 66.0

* Density reported as a percentage of the in-situ density of salt

The results show that the average achievable dry density was 66.8%. The dry density does vary 

by the position on the lift. The middle has the highest density at 68.0% and surprisingly the 

lowest is close to the bottom of the zone at 66.0%. Close to the back the average was 66.5%. 

4.5.2. CONSTRUCTION TIME

The crew, used to construct the lower zone and the upper zone, consisted of two qualified 

miners. Construction work was performed on a 10 hour shift for five days. As part of the 

construction methods assessment, each construction process was documented and the data 

collected can be found in Appendix F-3. The time necessary to emplace and push up each lift of 

the zone averaged 30 minutes. This equates to about 690 cubic feet of lift constructed per hour. 

In a 10 hour shift, about 6.5 hours are available for work to be performed. About 80% of the 

available time, or 5.2 hours per shift, could be expected to be used for actual work. This would 

account for equipment down time and support work. Assuming the 5.2 hours per shift and the 

rate determined above, the time necessary to construct a WPC in an intake drift, that is 12.5 

feet high and 20 feet wide, would be about 9 shifts. The time necessary to construct a WPC in 

the exhaust drift, that is 12.5 feet high and 14 feet wide, would be about 6 shifts. This time
Page 20 of 25

estimate does not include time necessary to perform moisture/density testing. For each set of 

tests, an additional 2 to 4 hours should be added to the total construction time.

5. REFERENCES

1. U.S. Department of Energy, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Underground Facilities and 

Equipment, System Design Description, SDD AU00.

2. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Shaft Sealing System Compliance Submittal Design Report, 

SAND96-1326/1.

3. U.S. Department of Energy, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Work Order Number 1202108C, 

Compacted Salt Evaluation.

4. U.S. Department of Energy, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Construction Methods Assessment 

for Compacted Salt Panel Closures Interim Report for Scenario 1 Testing.

 
Page 21 of 25

Figure 1 – Compacted Salt Test Area Plan and Cross Section Upper Zone Lifts Placed on a slope compacted by push plate

Lower Zone

6 inch lifts, compacted by roller

Un-compactedROM Salt

Scenario 1

 Test Area

Configuration

Bulkhead

506

Upper ZoneLifts Placed on a slope

compacted by push plate

Lower Zone

6 inch lifts, compacted by roller

Lifts Placed by LHDMaterial Pushed Tight toBack by Push-plateNo Compaction Effort

Settling Monitors Settling Monitors Settling Monitors

Scenario 2

 Test Area

Configuration

Scenario 3

 Test Area

Configuration

Scenario 1

 1% Water Added

Scenario 2

 No Water Added

Scenario 3

 No Water Added & No Compaction

S-3310

S-3650

W-30

Bulkhead

506

Plan View of Compacted Salt Test Area

Cross Sectional View of the Compacted Salt Test Area
Page 22 of 25

Figure 2 ‐ LHD Placing ROM Salt on Lower Zone Lift
Page 23 of 25

Figure 3 ‐ Walk‐behind Roller Compactor Compacting Lower Zone Lift   
Page 24 of 25

Figure 4 ‐ Fletcher with Push‐Plate Attachment
Page 25 of 25

Figure 5 ‐ Fletcher Compacting Upper Zone
APPENDIX A

Appendix A Contains The Following;

1. Laboratory Test Reports for the Nuclear Density Testing and

 Sand-Cone Testing Performed Prior To The Actual Field Testing

2. Laboratory Test Reports For the Sieve Analysis Performed On

 The ROM Salt Used For The Proctor Evaluation And On The

 ROM Salt Used For The Field Testing

3. Proctor Evaluation Data
APPENDIX A Page 1 of 10

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG 1 

SG2 

SG3 

SG4 

SG5 

SG6 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted 

Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

June 5, 2012 

Location 

On W. 30 Drift 

80' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E. Wall 

On W. 30 Drift 

70' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E.Wall 

On W. 30 Drift 

70'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E. Wall 

On W. 30 Drift 

80'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E.Wall 

On W. 30 Drift 

80' S. of Bulkhead and 6' W. of E. Wall 

On W. 30 Drift 

70' S. of Bulkhead and 6' W. of E. Wall 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: See Below 

Dry Density 

% Max % Moisture 

74.7 * 1.2 

74.8 * 1.5 

74.7 * 2.3 

75.0 * 1.6 

74.4 * 2.4 

76.6 * 1.4 

Depth 

1st Lift 

Probe Depth 6" 

1st Lift 

Probe Depth 6" 

1st Lift 

Probe Depth 4" 

1st Lift 

Probe Depth 4" 

1st Lift 

Probe Depth 6" 

1st Lift 

Probe Depth 6" 

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

ASTM D 1557 STD/STAT Trench Correction 21.6 

Required Compaction: 85% Densometer ID: 5071 

PEniGREW & ASSOCIATES 

* Does Not Meet Specifications 

Lab No.: 12 10870-10875 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX A Page 2 of 10

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG7 

SG8 

SG9 

SG10 

SG 11 

SG 12 

LABORATORYTESTREPORT AI& 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

HOBBS, NM 88240 AASHTO R18 

(575) 393-9827 DEBRAP. HICKS,P.E.IL.S.I. 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

June 5, 2012 

Location 

On W. 30 Drift 

70'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E. Wall 

On W. 30 Drift 

80'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E. Wall 

On W. 30 Drift 

80' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E. Wall 

On W. 30' Drift 

70' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E. Wall 

On W. 30' Drift 

70'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E.Wall 

On W. 30 Drift 

80'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E. Wall 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S. 

Material: ROM Salt 

Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: See Below 

Dry Density 

Ofo Max % Moisture 

75.8 * 2.0 

75.6 * 2.3 

75.9 * 1.7 

76.3 * 1.5 

76.7 * 2.2 

75.6 * 2.1 

Depth 

1st Lift 

Probe Depth 4" 

1st Lift 

Probe Depth 5" 

1st Lift 

Probe Depth 5" 

1st Lift 

Probe Depth 6" 

1st Lift 

Probe Depth 4" 

1st Lift 

Probe Depth 4" 

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

ASTM D 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections 21.6 

Required Compaction: 85% Densometer ID: 5071 

PEniGREW & ASSOCIATES 

* Does Not Meet Specifications 

Lab No.: 12 10876-10882 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX A Page 3 of 10

.-----------------·---· ------·----·-----···-·------···-·-----··-

To: 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R1B 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. Ill, P.E./P.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG58 

SG59 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

June 26, 2012 

Location 

Old Salt Pile 

Not part of Closure 

New Salt Pile 

Not part of Closure 

Control Density: 135.0 

ASTM D 1557 

Required Compaction: 80% 

* Does Not Meet Specifications; NO MOISTURE CORRECTION APPLIED. 

Lab No.: 12 11877-11880 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

%Max %Moisture Depth 

71.9 * 0.0 N/A 

68.1 * -0.1 N/A 

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

STD/STAT Trench Corrections -9.7 

Densometer ID: 5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 
APPENDIX A Page 4 of 10

To: 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

100 E. Navajo Drive, Suite 100 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AI& AASHTO R1B 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E./L.S.I 

WILLLAM M. HICKS. Ill, P.E.IP.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Teat Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Project: 

Date of Teat: 

Teat No. 

SG 166 

SG 167 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

September 5, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W-30 

Stockpile on E. 140 N.Side 

On Drift W-30 

Stockpile on E. 140 on S.Side 

Control Density: 135.0 

ASTM 0: 1557 

Required Compaction: 70-80% 

• Does Not Meet Specifications 

Lab No.: 12 15893-15895 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

%Max %Moisture Depth 

64.0. 0.6 3rd Region 

62.5. 0.5 3rd Region 

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

Densometer ID: 5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 
APPENDIX A Page 5 of 10

To: 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0 . BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO Rl& 

DEBRA P HICKS. P F LSI 

WILLIAM M. HICKS Ill, P E. P S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 1556 Sand Cone 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

sc 1 

Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted 

Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

June 5, 2012 

Location 

On W. 30 Drift 

80'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E. Wall 

(Corresponds to SG 4) 

Control Density: 135.0 

ASTM D 1557 

Required Compaction: 85% 

* Does Not Meet Specifications 

Lab No.: 12 10883 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: N/A 

Dry Density 

% Max % Moisture Depth 

77.0 * 1.6 1st L1ft 

Depth 4" 

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

Densometer ID: N/A 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 
APPENDIX A Page 6 of 10

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

To: 

Project: 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

Carlsbad, NM 88221 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

Date of Test: 5/22/2012 

Screen Size 

50.0 mm 2" 

25.0mm 1" 

19.0mm 3/4" 

12.5mm 1/2" 

9.5mm 3/8" 

4.75mm #4 

2.36mm #8 

2.0mm #10 

1.18 mm #16 

6001Jm #30 

4251Jm #40 

3001Jm #50 

180 IJm #80 

1501Jm #100 

751Jm #200 

Moisture (%) 

Delivered 5/18/2012 

Lab No.: 12 10356 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, 

LLC 

(575) 393-9827 

%Passing 

100 

80 

77 

71 

68 

53 

35 

31 

21 

12 

10 

7 

4 

3 

1.2 

0.1 

Type of Test: 

Type of Material: 

Location: 

Test No: 

AI& AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E.IP.S. 

Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse 

Aggregate 

ASTM:C 136 

ROM Salt 

WIPP Site 

SA-1 

Required Limits 
APPENDIX A Page 7 of 10

To: 

Project: 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

Carlsbad, NM 88221 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

(575) 393-9827 

Type of Test: 

AASHTO R1B 

DEBRA P. lUCKS, P.E.IL.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. lUCKS. III, P.E.IP.S. 

Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse 

Aggregate 

ASTM: C 136 

Type of Material: Course ROM Salt 

Date of Test: 5/22/2012 

Screen Size 

50.0mm 2" 

25.0 mm 1" 

19.0 mm 3/4" 

12.5mm 1/2" 

9.5mm 3/8" 

4.75 mm #4 

2.36 mm #8 

2.0mm #10 

1.18 mm #16 

600 IJm #30 

4251Jm #40 

300 1-1m #50 

180 1-1m #80 

150 1-1m #100 

751Jm #200 

Moisture(%) 

Delivered 5/18/2012 

Lab No.: 12 10357 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, 

LLC 

Location: WIPP Site 

Test No: SA-2 

%Passing Required Limits 

100 

82 

78 

68 

57 

29 

13 

11 

6 

4 

3 

3 

2 

2 

0.7 

0.1 
APPENDIX A Page 8 of 10

To: 

Project: 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

Carlsbad, NM 88221 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

(575) 393-9827 

Type of Test: 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.l. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S. 

Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse 

Aggregate 

ASTM: C 136 

Type of Material: Course ROM Salt 

Date of Test: 5/22/2012 

Screen Size 

50.0 mm 2" 

25.0 mm 1" 

19.0 mm 3/4" 

12.5 mm 1/2" 

9.5mm 3/8" 

4.75 mm #4 

2.36mm #8 

2.0mm #10 

1.18 mm #16 

600 1-1m #30 

4251Jm #40 

300 )Jm #50 

180 1-1m #80 

150 1-1m #100 

751Jm #200 

Moisture(%) 

Delivered 5/18/2012 

Lab No.: 

Copies To: 

12 10358-10359 

Washington TRU Solutions, 

LLC 

Location: WIPPSite 

Test No: SA-3 

%Passing Required Limits 

100 

98 

95 

90 

85 

67 

45 

41 

29 

18 

14 

11 

7 

5 

2.0 

0.0 
APPENDIX A Page 9 of 10

-------------------- -------------- ---------------- -

To: 

Project: 

LA BORA TORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

Carlsbad, NM 88221 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

(575) 393-9827 

Type of Test: 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. IDCKS, P.E.IL.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. ffiCKS. III, P.E./P.S. 

Materials Finer than #200 Sieve in 

Mineral Aggregates by Washing 

ASTM: C 117 

Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse 

Aggregate 

ASTM: C 136 

Type of Material: ROM Salt 

Date of Test: 6/19/2012 

Screen Size 

75.0mm 3" 

63.0mm 2Y." 

SO.Omm 2" 

37.5mm 1Y." 

31.5 mm 1Y." 

25.0mm 1" 

19.0 mm 3/4" 

12.5mm 1/2" 

9.5mm 3/8" 

4.75mm #4 

2.0mm #10 

4251Jm #40 

180 1-1m #80 

751Jm #200 

Moisture (%) 

Sampled and Delivered 6/18/2012 

Lab No.: 1211226-11227 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, 

LLC 

%Passing 

91 

85 

82 

80 

78 

76 

74 

71 

67 

52 

32 

13 

7 

3.1 

0.0 

Location: 

Test No: 

Wipp Site Underground from 

Stockpile 

SA-4 

Required Limits 
    6 inch mold     6 inch mold     4 inch mold

21‐May 23‐May 22‐May

%Mst. Dry Density %Mst. Dry Density %Mst. Dry Density

0.1 78.1 1.4 78.1 0.7 77.6

0.4 77 1.8 79.9 1.9 78.1

0.9 79 2.2 79.6 2.7 78.2

1.3 78.4 2.6 79.3 3.6 78.3

1 8 78 6 3 1 79 6 4 7 77 8

76.0

77.0

78.0

79.0

80.0

81.0

82.0

83.0

84.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Compaction (%)

Mst (%)

Comparison Data

21‐May

23‐May

22‐May

1.8 78.6 3.1 79.6 4.7 77.8

1.9 83.8 3.5 79.6 5.6 77.9

2.5 82.5 4 80.8 6.5 79.9

2.8 79 4.1 80.7 7.1 79.9

3 83.4 4.5 80.1 8 79.8

3.4 77.5 8.5 79.7

3.6 79.2 9.1 76.6

4.2 79.9

4.1 80.6

APPENDIX A Page 10 of 10 PROCTOR EVALUATION DATA
APPENDIX B -1 

Appendix B – 1 Contains The Following From Scenario 1;

1. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment A – 

 Lower Zone Lift Placement Information

2. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment B – 

 Lower Zone Lift Testing Results
Lower Zone

Scenario: 1

Test Region 1 ATTACHMENT A

Page 1 of 1

Date Lift # LHD #

Buckets 

Placed

Total cuyd 

placed

Time Water 

Applied (min.)

Water Applied 

approx (gal.)

Moisture 

sample# or %

6/4/2012 1 002C 7.5 27 4 80

6/6/2012 2 002C 6 21.6 3:00 60 1.6%

6/7/2012 3 002C 3 10.8 1:30 30 1.5%

6/11/2012 3 002C 3 10.8 1:30 30

6/12/2012 4 002C 3.5 12.6 1:45 35 1.9%

6/12/2012 4 002C 2.5 9 1:20 26.7

6/13/2012 5 002C 3 10.8 1:30 30

6/13/2012 5 002C 3 10.8 1:30 30

6/14/2012 6 002C 3 10.8 1:30 30

6/14/2012 6 002C 3 10.8 1:30 30

6/14/2012 7 002C 3 10.8 1:30 30 0.3%

6/14/2012 7 002C 3 10.8 1:30 30

Attachment to WO#1202108C

APPENDIX B - 1 Page 1 of 5
Lower Zone

Scenario:1

Test Region:1 ATTACHMENT B

Page 1 of 4

Date Lift #

Compactor 

Type

Compactor 

Speed 

(ft/min)

Cumulative 

Number of 

Compaction 

(No. of 

Passes)

Sample 

Location 

Distance off 

West Rib (ft)

Sample 

Locaton 

Distance off 

North Area 

Boundary (ft)

Sample 

Number Wet Density Moisture % Dry Density

6/5/2012 1 ROLLER 116.93 6

6/7/2012 2 ROLLER 132.28 2 4.5 36 SG14 73.3 2.2 71.8

6/7/2012 2 ROLLER 132.28 2 4.5 45 SG13 73.6 1.2 74.2

6/7/2012 2 ROLLER 132.25 2 13 37 SG15 75.9 1.2 74.4

6/7/2012 2 ROLLER 132.28 2 12.5 44 SG16 77.3 2.1 75.6

6/7/2012 2 ROLLER 141.31 4 8.25 43 SG17 77.6 2 76.1

6/7/2012 2 ROLLER 141.31 4 8 34.5 SG18 76.8 1.2 75.9

6/7/2012 2 ROLLER 141.31 4 12.5 36 SG19 73.9 1.2 72.9

6/7/2012 2 ROLLER 141.31 4 12.5 46 SG20 77 1.7 75.8

6/7/2012 2 ROLLER 148.12 6 8 41 SG21 77.3 2.3 75.6

6/7/2012 2 ROLLER 148.12 6 7.9 33.9 SG22 75.9 1.1 75

6/7/2012 2 ROLLER 148.12 6 11.7 46.4 SG23 78.1 1.5 76.7

Attachment to WO#1202108C

APPENDIX B - 1 Page 2 of 5
Lower Zone

Scenario:1

Test Region:1 ATTACHMENT B

Page 2 of 4

Date Lift #

Compactor 

Type

Compactor 

Speed 

(ft/min)

Cumulative 

Number of 

Compaction 

(No. of 

Passes)

Sample 

Location 

Distance off 

West Rib (ft)

Sample 

Locaton 

Distance off 

North Area 

Boundary (ft)

Sample 

Number Wet Density Moisture % Dry Density

6/7/2012 2 ROLLER 148.12 6 13.5 37 SG24 76.3 1.5 75

6/11/2012 3 ROLLER 153.75 2 5.5 35.8 SG25 74.4 1.2 74.4

6/11/2012 3 ROLLER 153.75 2 5.5 32.8 SG26 76.1 2.8 74.1

6/11/2012 3 ROLLER 153.75 2 11.75 34 SG27 74.2 1.3 73.1

6/11/2012 3 ROLLER 153.75 2 11.75 42.5 SG28 74 0.7 73.3

6/11/2012 3 ROLLER 145.59 4 6.5 41 SG29 74.6 1.9 73.2

6/11/2012 3 ROLLER 145.59 4 5.5 31.5 SG30 76.1 1.7 74.7

6/11/2012 3 ROLLER 145.59 4 11.5 33 SG31 73.3 1.2 72.4

6/11/2012 3 ROLLER 145.59 4 13.5 43 SG32 75.9 0.7 75.3

6/11/2012 3 ROLLER 131.59 6 6.5 31 SG34 77.4 2.2 75.9

6/11/2012 3 ROLLER 131.59 6 6.5 40 SG33 77.4 1.6 76.3

6/11/2012 3 ROLLER 131.59 6 13.5 31 SG35 74.1 1.2 73

Attachment to WO#1202108C

APPENDIX B - 1 Page 3 of 5
Lower Zone

Scenario:1

Test Region:1 ATTACHMENT B

Page 3 of 4

Date Lift #

Compactor 

Type

Compactor 

Speed 

(ft/min)

Cumulative 

Number of 

Compaction 

(No. of 

Passes)

Sample 

Location 

Distance off 

West Rib (ft)

Sample 

Locaton 

Distance off 

North Area 

Boundary (ft)

Sample 

Number Wet Density Moisture % Dry Density

6/11/2012 3 ROLLER 131.59 6 13.75 41 SG36 74.3 1.1 73.5

6/13/2012 4 ROLLER 155.94 2 6.25 40.75 SG37 76.2 1.7 74.9

6/13/2012 4 ROLLER 155.94 2 6.33 32 SG38 77.4 1.7 76.1

6/13/2012 4 ROLLER 155.94 2 13.5 32 SG39 75 1.7 73.8

6/13/2012 4 ROLLER 155.94 2 13.3 40.67 SG40 74 1.7 73.6

6/13/2012 4 ROLLER 155.65 4 6 41.25 SG41 76.1 2.1 74.3

6/13/2012 4 ROLLER 155.65 4 6.3 32 SG42 75.3 2.1 73.7

6/13/2012 4 ROLLER 155.65 4 11 32 SG43 76.9 2.1 75.3

6/13/2012 4 ROLLER 155.65 4 10.5 41.75 SG44 76.6 2.7 74.7

6/13/2012 4 ROLLER 189.61 6 7.5 40 SG45 77.1 2.7 75.1

6/13/2012 4 ROLLER 189.61 6 7.5 33 SG46 78.3 2.6 76.3

6/13/2012 4 ROLLER 189.61 6 13 33 SG47 76.3 2.7 74.3

APPENDIX B - 1 Page 4 of 5
Lower Zone

Scenario:1

Test Region:1 ATTACHMENT B

Page 4 of 4

Date Lift #

Compactor 

Type

Compactor 

Speed 

(ft/min)

Cumulative 

Number of 

Compaction 

(No. of 

Passes)

Sample 

Location 

Distance off 

West Rib (ft)

Sample 

Locaton 

Distance off 

North Area 

Boundary (ft)

Sample 

Number Wet Density Moisture % Dry Density

6/13/2012 4 ROLLER 189.91 6 13 41 SG48 76.2 2.7 74.1

6/18/2012 7 ROLLER 132.28 6 2.5 35 SG49 73 0.4 73.3

6/18/2012 7 ROLLER 132.28 6 8 35 SG50 74 0.3 73.6

6/18/2012 7 ROLLER 132.28 6 13 35 SG51 74.8 0.3 74.5

APPENDIX B - 1 Page 5 of 5
APPENDIX B – 2 

Appendix B – 2 Contains The Following From Scenario 2;

1. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment A – 

 Lower Zone Lift Placement Information

2. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment B – 

 Lower Zone Lift Testing Results
Lower Zone

Scenario: 2

Test Region: 2 ATTACHMENT A

Page 1 of 1

Date Lift # LHD #

Buckets 

Placed

Total cuyd 

placed

Time Water 

Applied (min.)

Water Applied 

approx (gal.)

Moisture 

sample# or %

7/24/2012 1 002C 3 10.8 0 0 N/A

7/24/2012 2 002C 3 10.8 0 0 N/A

7/24/2012 3 002C 3 10.8 0 0 N/A

7/24/2012 4 002C 3 10.8 0 0 N/A

7/25/2012 5 002C 3 10.8 0 0 N/A

7/26/2012 6 002C 3 10.8 0 0 N/A

7/26/2012 7 002C 3 10.8 0 0 N/A

7/26/2012 8 002C 3 10.8 0 0 N/A

7/30/2012 9 002C 3 10.8 0 0 N/A

7/30/2012 10 002C 3 10.8 0 0 N/A

Attachment to WO#1202108C

APPENDIX B - 2 Page 1 of 5
Lower Zone

Scenario: 2

Test Region: 2 ATTACHMENT B

Page 1 of 4

Date Lift #

Compactor 

Type

Compactor 

Speed 

(ft/min)

Cumulative 

Number of 

Compaction 

(No. of 

Passes)

Sample 

Location 

Distance off 

West Rib (ft)

Sample 

Locaton 

Distance off 

North Area 

Boundary 

(ft)

Sample 

Number Moisture % Density

7/25/2012 4 ROLLER 102.5 2 8 13 SG85 0.3 75.0

7/25/2012 4 ROLLER 102.5 2 8 7 SG86 0.3 73.3

7/25/2012 4 ROLLER 102.5 2 13.5 8.5 SG87 0.3 74.6

7/25/2012 4 ROLLER 102.5 2 13.5 15 SG88 0.3 76.1

7/25/2012 4 ROLLER 79 4 8.5 10.5 SG89 0.4 77.8

7/25/2012 4 ROLLER 79 4 8.5 6 SG90 0 75.9

7/25/2012 4 ROLLER 79 4 13.5 9 SG91 0.2 72.6

7/25/2012 4 ROLLER 79 4 13.5 16 SG92 0.3 76.4

7/25/2012 4 ROLLER 117.5 6 8 12 SG93 0.4 74.9

7/25/2012 4 ROLLER 117.5 6 6.5 6 SG94 0.3 73.9

7/25/2012 4 ROLLER 117.5 6 12.5 8 SG95 0.3 75.1

7/25/2012 4 ROLLER 117.5 6 14 13.5 SG96 0.2 76.7

Attachment to WO#1202108C

APPENDIX B - 2 Page 2 of 5
Lower Zone

Scenario: 2

Test Region: 2 ATTACHMENT B

Page 2 of 4

Date Lift #

Compactor 

Type

Compactor 

Speed 

(ft/min)

Cumulative 

Number of 

Compaction 

(No. of 

Passes)

Sample 

Location 

Distance off 

West Rib (ft)

Sample 

Locaton 

Distance off 

North Area 

Boundary 

(ft)

Sample 

Number Moisture % Density

7/26/2012 6 ROLLER 93.5 2 6.5 14 SG97 0.6 75.3

7/26/2012 6 ROLLER 93.5 2 6.5 9 SG98 0.3 73.0

7/26/2012 6 ROLLER 93.5 2 8 12 SG99 0.5 74.1

7/26/2012 6 ROLLER 93.5 2 15 12.5 SG100 0.4 75.0

7/26/2012 6 ROLLER 68.0 4 8.5 15 SG101 0.5 78.3

7/26/2012 6 ROLLER 68.0 4 8.5 7 SG102 0.5 75.0

7/26/2012 6 ROLLER 68.0 4 12.5 9.5 SG103 0.5 75.1

7/26/2012 6 ROLLER 68.0 4 13 16 SG104 0.5 73.0

7/26/2012 6 ROLLER 83.0 6 8 12.5 SG105 0.5 74.7

7/26/2012 6 ROLLER 83.0 6 9 4.5 SG106 0.5 71.5

7/26/2012 6 ROLLER 83.0 6 14 7 SG107 0.5 74.0

7/26/2012 6 ROLLER 83.0 6 14 14 SG108 0.4 76.6

Attachment to WO#1202108C

APPENDIX B - 2 Page 3 of 5
Lower Zone

Scenario: 2

Test Region: 2 ATTACHMENT B

Page 3 of 4

Date Lift #

Compactor 

Type

Compactor 

Speed 

(ft/min)

Cumulative 

Number of 

Compaction 

(No. of 

Passes)

Sample 

Location 

Distance off 

West Rib (ft)

Sample 

Locaton 

Distance off 

North Area 

Boundary 

(ft)

Sample 

Number Moisture % Density

7/30/2012 8 LHD 93.5 2 7.5 15 SG109 0 74.7

7/30/2012 8 LHD 93.5 2 7 6.5 SG110 0.1 73.1

7/30/2012 8 LHD 93.5 2 12.5 7 SG111 0.1 72.6

7/30/2012 8 LHD 93.5 2 12 14.5 SG112 0 74.6

7/30/2012 8 LHD 93.5 4 8.5 14 SG113 0 76.6

7/30/2012 8 LHD 93.5 4 8.5 5.5 SG114 0.1 68.4

7/30/2012 8 LHD 93.5 4 13.5 6 SG115 0 72.4

7/30/2012 8 LHD 93.5 4 13.5 14 SG116 0 74.5

7/30/2012 8 LHD 83.1 6 8 13 SG117 0 77.2

7/30/2012 8 LHD 83.1 6 7 5 SG118 0 75.5

7/30/2012 8 LHD 83.1 6 13.5 5.5 SG119 0.4 72.0

7/30/2012 8 LHD 83.1 6 11.5 13.5 SG120 0.7 75.0

Attachment to WO#1202108C

APPENDIX B - 2 Page 4 of 5
Lower Zone

Scenario: 2

Test Region: 2 ATTACHMENT B

Page 4 of 4

Date Lift #

Compactor 

Type

Compactor 

Speed 

(ft/min)

Cumulative 

Number of 

Compaction 

(No. of 

Passes)

Sample 

Location 

Distance off 

West Rib (ft)

Sample 

Locaton 

Distance off 

North Area 

Boundary 

(ft)

Sample 

Number Moisture % Density

7/31/2012 10 LHD 95.0 2 6.5 14 SG121 0.3 74.1

7/31/2012 10 LHD 95.0 2 7.5 4.5 SG122 0.3 72.5

7/31/2012 10 LHD 95.0 2 12 6.5 SG123 0.4 70.1

7/31/2012 10 LHD 95.0 2 12 14 SG124 0.4 73.3

7/31/2012 10 LHD 83.1 4 7 12.5 SG125 0.4 76.4

7/31/2012 10 LHD 83.1 4 7 3.5 SG126 0.3 74.1

7/31/2012 10 LHD 83.1 4 12 4.5 SG127 0.5 73.8

7/31/2012 10 LHD 83.1 4 12 12 SG128 0.5 75.7

7/31/2012 10 LHD 95.0 6 8.5 13 SG129 0.4 78.1

7/31/2012 10 LHD 95.0 6 6 5.5 SG130 0.3 72.1

7/31/2012 10 LHD 95.0 6 11 6 SG131 0.4 73.9

7/31/2012 10 LHD 95.0 6 11 13.5 SG132 0.4 76.9

Attachment to WO#1202108C

APPENDIX B - 2 Page 5 of 5
APPENDIX C -1 

Appendix C - 1 Contains The Following From Scenario 1;

1. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment C – 

 Upper Zone Lift Placement Information

2. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment D – 

 Upper Zone Lift Placement Information
Upper Zone

Scenario:1

Test Region:1 ATTACHMENT C

Page 1 of 3

Date

Staged 

Batch # LHD #

Buckets 

Staged

Total cuyd 

staged

Water Applied 

approx (gal.)

Time Water 

Applied (min.)

Moisture 

sample# or %

6/21/2012 1 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

6/25/2012 2 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

6/25/2012 3 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 1.3%

6/26/2012 4 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

6/27/2012 5 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

6/27/2012 6 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

6/28/2012 7 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 0.8%

7/2/2012 8 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

7/2/2012 9 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

7/2/2012 10 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

7/9/2012 11 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

7/9/2012 12 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

Attachment to WO#1202108C

APPENDIX C - 1 Page 1 of 6
Upper Zone

Scenario: 1

Test Region: 1 ATTACHMENT C

Page 2 of 3

Date

Staged 

Batch # LHD #

Buckets 

Staged

Total cuyd 

staged

Water Applied 

approx (gal.)

Time Water 

Applied (min.)

Moisture 

sample# or %

7/9/2012 13 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 1.10%

7/9/2012 14 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

7/11/2012 15 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

7/11/2012 16 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

7/12/2012 17 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

7/12/2012 18 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

7/12/2012 19 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00 1.60%

7/16/2012 20 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

7/17/2012 21 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

7/17/2012 22 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

7/17/2012 23 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

7/17/2012 24 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

Attachment to WO#1202108C

APPENDIX C - 1 Page 2 of 6
Upper Zone

Scenario: 1

Test Region: 1 ATTACHMENT C

Page 3 of 3

Date

Staged 

Batch # LHD #

Buckets 

Staged

Total cuyd 

staged

Water Applied 

approx (gal.)

Time Water 

Applied (min.)

Moisture 

sample# or %

6/17/2012 25 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

6/18/2012 26 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

6/18/2012 27 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

6/18/2012 28 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

6/19/2012 29 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

6/19/2012 30 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

6/19/2012 31 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

6/19/2012 32 002C 2 7.2 20 1:00

Attachment to WO#1202108C

APPENDIX C - 1 Page 3 of 6
Upper Zone

Scenario:1

Test Region: 1 ATTACHMENT D

Page 1 of 3

Date Lift #

Staged 

Batch # LHD#

Buckets 

Placed

Plate 

Impact 

Time (sec)

Cumulative 

Number of 

Compaction 

(No. of 

Passes)

Sample 

Location 

Distance off 

West Rib (ft)

Sample 

Locaton 

Distance 

from Back 

(ft)

Sample 

Number

Wet 

Density

Moisture 

%

Dry 

Density

6/26/2012 3 3 002C 2 5 1 3 3 SG52 59.7 0.9 58.4

6/26/2012 3 3 002C 2 5 1 7 2.75 SG53 63.2 1.6 62.1

6/26/2012 3 3 002C 2 5 1 11 3 SG54 68.8 0.7 68.3

6/26/2012 3 3 002C 2 5 1 3.5 4.75 SG55 61.5 2 60.1

6/26/2012 3 3 002C 2 5 1 7 4.75 SG56 64.6 1.2 63.9

6/26/2012 3 3 002C 2 5 1 10 4.5 SG57 62.1 1.4 61.2

6/29/2012 7 7 002C 2 5 1 5 8 SG60 64.4 0.6 64.1

6/29/2012 7 7 002C 2 5 1 12 8 SG61 61 1 60.4

6/29/2012 7 7 002C 2 5 1 6 6 SG62 67.4 0.8 66.8

6/29/2012 7 7 002C 2 5 1 15 6 SG63 65.6 0.7 65.1

6/29/2012 7 7 002C 2 5 1 8 4 SG64 63.4 0.9 62.8

6/29/2012 7 7 002C 2 5 1 6 4 SG65 67.6 1 66.8

Attachment to WO#1202108C

APPENDIX C - 1 Page 4 of 6
Upper Zone

Scenario:1

Test Region:1 ATTACHMENT D

Page 2 of 3

Date Lift #

Staged 

Batch # LHD#

Buckets 

Placed

Plate 

Impact 

Time (sec)

Cumulative 

Number of 

Compaction 

(No. of 

Passes)

Sample 

Location 

Distance off 

West Rib (ft)

Sample 

Locaton 

Distance 

from Back 

(ft)

Sample 

Number

Wet 

Density

Moisture 

%

Dry 

Density

7/10/2012 13 13 002C 2 0 1 3 6.5 SG66 70.4 1.7 68.7

7/10/2012 13 13 002C 2 0 1 8.5 5 SG67 73.9 1.7 72.9

7/10/2012 13 13 002C 2 0 1 2.5 5 SG68 71.9 0.9 71.3

7/10/2012 13 13 002C 2 0 1 12.5 4 SG69 70.9 0.4 70.5

7/10/2012 13 13 002C 2 0 1 3.5 2.75 SG70 67.7 0.6 67.3

7/10/2012 13 13 002C 2 0 1 10 2.5 SG71 67.1 1.5 66

7/11/2012 19 19 002C 2 0 1 4.5 7 SG72 55.5 1.7 55

7/11/2012 19 19 002C 2 0 1 11.5 7 SG73 62.5 2.2 61.1

7/11/2012 19 19 002C 2 0 1 5.5 5 SG74 62.3 1.7 61

7/11/2012 19 19 002C 2 0 1 14.5 5 SG75 60.4 0.7 59.9

7/11/2012 19 19 002C 2 0 1 4 3.5 SG76 61.4 1.8 60.1

7/11/2012 19 19 002C 2 0 1 11.5 3 SG77 66.4 1.6 66.4

Attachment to WO#1202108C

APPENDIX C - 1 Page 5 of 6
Upper Zone

Scenario:1

Test Region:1 ATTACHMENT D

Page 3 of 3

Date Lift #

Staged 

Batch # LHD#

Buckets 

Placed

Plate 

Impact 

Time (sec)

Cumulative 

Number of 

Compaction 

(No. of 

Passes)

Sample 

Location 

Distance off 

West Rib (ft)

Sample 

Locaton 

Distance 

from Back 

(ft)

Sample 

Number

Wet 

Density

Moisture 

%

Dry 

Density

7/23/2012 32 32 002C 2 0 1 4 7.5 SG79 59.6 2.1 57.9

7/23/2012 32 32 002C 2 0 1 12 6.5 SG80 56.3 2.2 54.7

7/23/2012 32 32 002C 2 0 1 405 4 SG81 65.3 0.6 64.6

7/23/2012 32 32 002C 2 0 1 13 4 SG82 61 1.1 60.3

7/23/2012 32 32 002C 2 0 1 4 2 SG83 61.7 1.1 61

7/23/2012 32 32 002C 2 0 1 11 2 SG84 61.2 0.7 60.7

Attachment to WO#1202108C

APPENDIX C - 1 Page 6 of 6
APPENDIX C – 2 

Appendix C - 2 Contains The Following From Scenario 2;

1. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment C – 

 Upper Zone Lift Placement Information

2. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment D – 

 Upper Zone Lift Placement Information
Upper Zone

Scenario: 2

Test Region: 2 ATTACHMENT C

Page 1 of 4

Date

Staged 

Batch # LHD #

Buckets 

Staged

Total cuyd 

staged

Water Applied 

approx (gal.)

Time Water 

Applied (min.)

Moisture 

sample# or %

8/8/2012 1 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/8/2012 2 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/8/2012 3 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/9/2012 4 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/9/2012 5 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/9/2012 6 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/9/2012 7 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/13/2012 8 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/13/2012 9 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/13/2012 10 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/14/2012 11 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/14/2012 12 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

Attachment to WO#1202108C

APPENDIX C - 2 Page 1 of 6
Upper Zone

Scenario: 2

Test Region: 2 ATTACHMENT C

Page 2 of 4

Date

Staged 

Batch # LHD #

Buckets 

Staged

Total cuyd 

staged

Water Applied 

approx (gal.)

Time Water 

Applied (min.)

Moisture 

sample# or %

8/15/2012 13 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/15/2012 14 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/15/2012 15 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/15/2012 16 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/15/2012 17 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/16/2012 18 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/16/2012 19 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/20/2012 20 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/20/2012 21 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/20/2012 22 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/20/2012 23 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

Attachment to WO#1202108C

APPENDIX C - 2 Page 2 of 6
Upper Zone

Scenario: 2

Test Region: 2 ATTACHMENT C

Page 3 of 4

Date

Staged 

Batch # LHD #

Buckets 

Staged

Total cuyd 

staged

Water Applied 

approx (gal.)

Time Water 

Applied (min.)

Moisture 

sample# or %

8/21/2012 24 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/21/2012 25 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/21/2012 26 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/21/2012 27 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/22/2012 28 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/22/2012 29 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/22/2012 30 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/23/2012 31 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/23/2012 32 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/23/2012 33 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/23/2012 34 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/23/2012 35 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/23/2012 36 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

Attachment to WO#1202108C

APPENDIX C - 2 Page 3 of 6
Upper Zone

Scenario: 2

Test Region: 2 ATTACHMENT C

Page 4 of 4

Date

Staged 

Batch # LHD #

Buckets 

Staged

Total cuyd 

staged

Water Applied 

approx (gal.)

Time Water 

Applied (min.)

Moisture 

sample# or %

8/24/2012 37 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/24/2012 38 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/24/2012 39 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

8/24/2012 40 002C 2 7.2 0 N/A N/A

Attachment to WO#1202108C

APPENDIX C - 2 Page 4 of 6
Upper Zone

Scenario: 2

Test Region: 2 ATTACHMENT D

Page 1 of 2

Date Lift #

Staged 

Batch # LHD#

Buckets 

Placed

Plate 

Impact 

Time (sec)

Cumulative 

Number of 

Compaction 

(No. of 

Passes)

Sample 

Location 

Distance off 

West Rib (ft)

Sample 

Locaton 

Distance 

from Back (ft)

Sample 

Number

Moisture 

% Density %

8/14/2012 10 10 002C 2 0 1 3.5 6 SG136 0.3 65.1

8/14/2012 10 10 002C 2 0 1 11 7 SG137 0.4 66.5

8/14/2012 10 10 002C 2 0 1 6 4.5 SG138 0.4 64.7

8/14/2012 10 10 002C 2 0 1 13 4 SG139 0.4 65.3

8/14/2012 10 10 002C 2 0 1 3 3 SG140 0.4 63.6

8/14/2012 10 10 002C 2 0 1 10 3 SG141 0.4 62.1

8/16/2012 17 17 002C 2 0 1 3 7.5 SG142 0.3 55.1

8/16/2012 17 17 002C 2 0 1 14 8 SG143 0.4 59.0

8/16/2012 17 17 002C 2 0 1 5 5.5 SG144 0.4 61.3

8/16/2012 17 17 002C 2 0 1 12 5 SG145 0.4 63.7

8/16/2012 17 17 002C 2 0 1 3 3 SG146 0.4 63.6

8/16/2012 17 17 002C 2 0 1 14 3 SG147 0.4 58.8

Attachment to WO#1202108C

APPENDIX C - 2 Page 5 of 6
Upper Zone

Scenario: 2

Test Region: 2 ATTACHMENT D

Page 2 of 2

Date Lift #

Staged 

Batch # LHD#

Buckets 

Placed

Plate 

Impact 

Time (sec)

Cumulative 

Number of 

Compaction 

(No. of 

Passes)

Sample 

Location 

Distance off 

West Rib (ft)

Sample 

Locaton 

Distance 

from Back (ft)

Sample 

Number

Moisture 

% Density %

8/22/2012 27 30 002C 2 0 1 2 8 SG148 0.4 60.8

8/22/2012 27 30 002C 2 0 1 12 7.5 SG149 0.3 61.7

8/22/2012 27 30 002C 2 0 1 5 5 SG150 0.6 61.1

8/22/2012 27 30 002C 2 0 1 12 4 SG151 0.5 63.1

8/22/2012 27 30 002C 2 0 1 5 3 SG152 0.5 64.1

8/22/2012 27 30 002C 2 0 1 12 2.5 SG153 0.4 63.6

8/24/2012 37 37 002C 2 0 1 2 7.5 SG154 0.3 61.7

8/24/2012 37 37 002C 2 0 1 13 8 SG155 0.2 62.1

8/24/2012 37 37 002C 2 0 1 4 5.5 SG156 0.4 61.3

8/24/2012 37 37 002C 2 0 1 13 5.5 SG157 0.5 64.2

8/24/2012 37 37 002C 2 0 1 4 2.5 SG158 0.4 65.3

8/24/2012 37 37 002C 2 0 1 13 2.5 SG159 0.3 62.1

Attachment to WO#1202108C

APPENDIX C - 2 Page 6 of 6
APPENDIX C-3 

Appendix C - 3 Contains The Following From Scenario 3;

1. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment C – 

ROM Salt Placement Information 

2. The Work Package Data Log Sheets Attachment D – 

ROM Salt Placement Information
Scenario: 3

Test Region: 3 ATTACHMENT C

Page 1 of 3

Date

Staged Batch 

# LHD # Buckets Staged

Total cuyd 

staged

Water Applied 

approx (gal.)

Time Water 

Applied (min.)

Moisture 

sample# or %

9/4/2012 1 002C 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A

9/4/2012 2 002C 9 32.4 N/A N/A N/A

9/5/2012 3 002C 4 14.4 N/A N/A N/A

9/5/2012 4 002C 4 14.4 N/A N/A N/A

9/5/2012 5 002C 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A

9/5/2012 6 002C 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A

9/5/2012 7 002C 6 21.6 N/A N/A N/A

9/6/2012 8 002C 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A

9/6/2012 9 002C 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A

9/6/2012 10 002C 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A

9/6/2012 11 002C 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A

9/6/2012 12 002C 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A

Attachment to WO#1202108C

APPENDIX C - 3 Page 1 of 5
Scenario: 3

Test Region: 3 ATTACHMENT C

Page 2 of 3

Date

Staged Batch 

# LHD # Buckets Staged

Total cuyd 

staged

Water Applied 

approx (gal.)

Time Water 

Applied (min.)

Moisture 

sample# or %

9/6/2012 13 002C 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A

9/6/2012 14 002C 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A

9/6/2012 15 002C 4 14.4 N/A N/A N/A

9/6/2012 16 002C 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A

9/6/2012 17 002C 4 14.4 N/A N/A N/A

9/7/2012 18 138 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A

9/7/2012 19 138 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A

9/7/2012 20 138 4 14.4 N/A N/A N/A

9/7/2012 21 138 4 14.4 N/A N/A N/A

9/6/2012 22 138 4 14.4 N/A N/A N/A

9/6/2012 23 138 4 14.4 N/A N/A N/A

9/6/2012 24 138 4 14.4 N/A N/A N/A

Attachment to WO#1202108C

APPENDIX C - 3 Page 2 of 5
Scenario: 3

Test Region: 3 ATTACHMENT C

Page 3 of 3

Date

Staged Batch 

# LHD # Buckets Staged

Total cuyd 

staged

Water Applied 

approx (gal.)

Time Water 

Applied (min.)

Moisture 

sample# or %

9/7/2012 25 138 4 14.4 N/A N/A N/A

9/7/2012 26 138 4 14.4 N/A N/A N/A

9/8/2012 27 138 2 7.2 N/A N/A N/A

9/8/2012 28 138 4 14.4 N/A N/A N/A

9/8/2012 29 138 4 14.4 N/A N/A N/A

Attachment to WO#1202108C

APPENDIX C - 3 Page 3 of 5
ATTACHMENT D

Date Lift #

Staged 

Batch # LHD#

Buckets 

Placed

Plate 

Impact 

Time 

(sec)

Cumulative 

Number of 

Compaction 

(No. of 

Passes)

Sample 

Location 

Distance 

off West 

Rib (ft)

Sample 

Locaton 

Distance 

from Back 

(ft)

Sample 

Number

Wet 

Density

Moisture 

%

Dry 

Density

9/5/2012 5 5 002C 2 N/A N/A 3' 8' SG160 64.8 0.4 64.5

9/5/2012 5 5 002C 2 N/A N/A 12' 8'6" SG161 63.3 0.3 63.1

9/5/2012 5 5 002C 2 N/A N/A 3' 4'6" SG162 68.4 0.5 68.1

9/5/2012 5 5 002C 2 N/A N/A 14' 4'6" SG163 67.9 0.5 67.6

9/5/2012 5 5 002C 2 N/A N/A 6' 3' SG164 65.2 0.5 64.8

9/5/2012 5 5 002C 2 N/A N/A 13' 3' SG165 65.1 0.5 64.7

9/5/2012 Stock Pile N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A E140 North End SG166 64.5 0.6 64.0

9/5/2012 Stock Pile N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A E140 South End SG167 63.1 0.5 62.5

Scenario:____3

Attachment to WO#1202108C

Page 1 of 2

Test Region:__3

APPENDIX C - 3 Page 4 of 5
ATTACHMENT D

Date Lift #

Staged 

Batch # LHD#

Buckets 

Placed

Plate 

Impact 

Time 

(sec)

Cumulative 

Number of 

Compaction 

(No. of 

Passes)

Sample 

Location 

Distance 

off West 

Rib (ft)

Sample 

Locaton 

Distance 

from Back 

(ft)

Sample 

Number

Wet 

Density

Moisture 

%

Dry 

Density

9/7/2012 17 17 002C 2 N/A N/A 2'8" 9'7" SG168 58.9 0.3 61.6

9/7/2012 17 17 002C 2 N/A N/A 13' 8'10" SG169 65.8 0.4 65.6

9/7/2012 17 17 002C 2 N/A N/A 3' 5'1" SG170 65.3 0.4 65.1

9/7/2012 17 17 002C 2 N/A N/A 14'6" 6' SG171 63.5 0.4 63.3

9/7/2012 17 17 002C 2 N/A N/A 2'10" 3'2" SG172 67.1 0.4 66.9

9/7/2012 17 17 002C 2 N/A N/A 13'4" 3'7" SG173 63.2 0.4 63.0

9/10/2012 29 29 138 4 N/A N/A 6'6" 8' SG174 69.7 0.3 71.7

9/10/2012 29 29 138 4 N/A N/A 13'6" 8'6" SG175 68.9 0.4 69.6

9/10/2012 29 29 138 4 N/A N/A 4' 5'6" SG176 71.1 0.4 71.0

9/10/2012 29 29 138 4 N/A N/A 10' 6' SG177 72.9 0.3 73.0

9/10/2012 29 29 138 4 N/A N/A 6' 3' SG178 70.4 0.4 70.1

9/10/2012 29 29 138 4 N/A N/A 12' 3' SG179 69.4 0.5 69.2

Attachment to WO#1202108C

Scenario: 3

Page 2 of 2

Test Region: 3

APPENDIX C - 3 Page 5 of 5
APPENDIX D – 1 

Appendix D - 1 Contains The Following From Scenario 1; 

1. Table 1, Comparison Of Nuclear Density Sampling And

Sand Cone Sampling At Corresponding Locations

2. The Laboratory Test Reports For The Nuclear Density

Testing Performed On The Lifts Of The Lower Zone

3. The Laboratory Test Reports For The Sand-Cone

Testing Performed On The Lifts Of The Lower Zone
Comparison of Nuclear Density Sampling and Sand Cone Sampling

At Corresponding Locations

Lower Zone

SG Number Density Moisture* SC Number Density Moisture* 

SG16 75.6 2.1 SC2 77.9 1.2

SG19 72.9 1.2 SC3 72.0 1.2

SG22 75.0 1.1 SC4 74.1 1.1

SG28 73.3 0.7 SC5 75.7 1.6

Average 74.2 1.3 74.9 1.3

Upper Zone

SG Number Density Moisture* SC Number Density Moisture* 

SG53 62.1 1.6 SC6 67.5 1.5

SG60 64.1 0.6 SC7 65.0 0.6

SG67 72.9 1.7 SC10 76.4 1.7

SG69 70.5 0.4 SC11 70.2 0.4

SG71 66.0 1.5 SC12 67.6 1.5

SG79 56.4 2.1 SC13 67.9 2.1

SG81 64.6 0.6 SC14 62.1 0.6

Average 65.2 1.2 68.1 1.2 

*Moisture determination by ASTM D2216

Table 1

APPENDIX D - 1 Page 1 of 11
APPENDIX D - 1 Page 2 of 11

,----------------------------

lABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

AASHTO R1B 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. ill, P.E./P.S. 

To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

Material: ROM Salt 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG 13 

SG 14 

SG 15 

SG 16 

SG 17 

SG 18 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

June 7, 2012 

Location 

On W. 30 Drift 

80'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E. Wall 

On W. 30 Drift 

70'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E. Wall 

On W. 30 Drift 

70' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E. Wall 

On W. 30 Drift 

80' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E. Wall 

On W. 30 Drift 

80'S. of Bulkhead and 12' W. of E. Wall 

On W. 30 Drift 

70'S. of Bulkhead and 12' W. of E. Wall 

Control Density: 135.0 

ASTM D 1557 

Required Compaction: 85% 

* Does Not Meet Specifications 

Lab No.: 12 1 0884-1 0889 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

%Max %Moisture Depth 

74.2 * 1.2 2nd lift 

71.8 * 2.2 2nd Lift 

74.4 * 1.2 2nd Lift 

75.6 * 2.1 2nd Lift 

76.1 * 2.0 2nd Lift 

75.9 * 1.2 2nd Lift 

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

STD/STAT Trech Corrections 19.7 

Densometer ID: 5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 
APPENDIX D - 1 Page 3 of 11

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E./L.S.I. 

WilliAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S. 

To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

Material: ROM Salt 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG 19 

SG20 

SG21 

SG22 

SG23 

SG24 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 

lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

June 7, 2012 

Location 

On W. 30 Drift 

70' S. of Bulkhead and 6' W. of E.Wall 

On W. 30 Drift 

80' S. of Bulkhead and 6' W. of E.Wall 

On W. 30 Drift 

80'S. and 10' W. of E. Wall 

On W. 30 Drift 

70'S. and 10' W. of E. Wall 

On W. 30 Drift 

70'S. and 5' W. of E. Wall 

On W. 30 Drift 

80' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E.Wall 

Control Density: 135.0 

ASTM D 1557 

Required Compaction: 85% 

* Does Not Meet Specifications 

Lab No.: 12 1 0890-1 0896 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

%Max %Moisture Depth 

72.9 * 1.2 2nd Lift 

75.8 * 1.7 2nd Lift 

75.6 * 2.3 2nd Lift 

75.0 * 1.1 2nd Lift 

76.7 * 1.5 2nd Lift 

75.0 * 1.5 2nd Lift 

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

STD/STAT Trench Corrections 19.7 

Densometer ID: 5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 
APPENDIX D - 1 Page 4 of 11

.--------------------------------------------------------

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. Ill, P.E.IP.S. 

To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

Material: ROM Salt 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG25 

SG26 

SG27 

SG28 

SG29 

SG30 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

June 11, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W.30 

80' S. of Bulkhead and 1 0' W. of E. Wall 

On Drift W.30 

70' S. of Bulkhead and 8' W. of E. Wall 

On Drift W.30 

70' S. of Bulkhead and 4' W. of E. Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

80' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E. Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

70'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E. Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

70'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E. Wall 

Control Density: 135.0 

ASTM D 1557 

Required Compaction: 80% 

* Does Not Meet Specifications 

Lab No.: 12 11070-11075 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

%Max %Moisture Depth 

74.4 * 1.2 3rd Lift 

74.1 * 2.8 3rd Lift 

73.1 * 1.3 3rd Lift 

73.3 * 0.7 3rd Lift 

73.2 * 1.9 3rd Lift 

74.7 * 1.7 3rd Lift 

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

STD/STAT Trench Corrections 11.9 

Densometer ID: 5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 
APPENDIX D - 1 Page 5 of 11

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG31 

SG32 

SG33 

SG34 

SG35 

SG36 

----------·----·--------------------- ----

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R1B 

DEBRA P. IDCKS, P.E.IL.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. IDCKS. III, P.E./P.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 

Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

June11,2012 

Location 

On Drift W.30 

70' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E. Wall 

On Drift W.30 

80' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E. Wall 

On Drift W.30 

80' S. of Bulkhead and 9' W. of E. Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

70' S. of Bulkhead and 9' W. of E. Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

70' S. of Bulkhead and 4' W. of E. Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

80' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E. Wall 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

%Max %Moisture Depth 

72.4 * 1.2 3rd Lift 

75.3 * 0.7 3rd Lift 

76.3 * 1.6 3rd Lift 

75.9 * 2.2 3rd Lift 

73.0 * 1.2 3rd Lift 

73.5 * 1.1 3rd Lift 

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

ASTM D 1557 STD/ST AT Trench Corrections 11.9 

Required Compaction: 80% Densometer ID: 5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

* Does Not Meet Specifications 

Lab No.: 12 11076-11082 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX D - 1 Page 6 of 11

To: 

---------------------------------

*Corrected Copy 7-11-12 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. IDCKS, P.E.IL.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. IDCKS. III, P.E./P.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG37 

SG38 

SG39 

SG40 

SG41 

SG42 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

June 13, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W.30 

80'S. of Bulkhead and 12' W. of E. Wall 

On Drift W.30 

70'S. of Bulkhead and 12' W. of E. Wall 

On Drift W.30 

70' S. of Bulkhead and 4' W. of E. Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

80' S. of Bulkhead and 4' W. of E. Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

80'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E.Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

70' S. of Bulkhead and 1 0' W. of E. Wall 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

%Max %Moisture Depth 

74.9 * 1.7 4th Lift 

76.1 * 1.7 4th Lift 

73.8 * 1.7 4th Lift 

73.6 * 1.7 4th Lift 

74.3 * 2.1 4th Lift 

73.7 * 2.1 4th Lift 

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

ASTM D 1557 

Required Compaction: 80% Densometer 10: 

* Does Not Meet Specifications; 3 Moisture Samples taken Per TV; Moistures and Percent 

Maximum Dry Density were Corrected using Moistures from SG 37, 43 & 48. 

Lab No.: 12 11084-11089 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 
APPENDIX D - 1 Page 7 of 11

,-----------------------------------------------··-------------- ---

To: 

•corrected Copy 7-11-12 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R1B 

DEBRAP. HICKS, P.E./L.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG43 

SG44 

SG45 

SG46 

SG47 

SG48 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

June 13, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W.30 

70'S. of Bulkhead and 4' W. of E. Wall 

On DriftW.30 

80' S. of Bulkhead and 4' W. of E. Wall 

On Drift W.30 

80'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E.Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

70'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E. Wall 

On DriftW. 30 

70' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E. Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

80' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E. Wall 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

%Max %Moisture Depth 

75.3 * 2.1 4th Lift 

74.7 * 2.7 4th Lift 

75.1 * 2.7 4th Lift 

76.3 * 2.6 4th Lift 

74.3 * 2.7 4th Lift 

74.1 * 2.7 4th Lift 

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

ASTM D 1557 

Required Compaction: 80% Densometer ID: 

• Does Not Meet Specifications; 3 Moisture Samples taken Per TY; Moistures and Percent 

Maximum Dry Density were Corrected using Moistures from SG 37, 43 & 48. 

Lab No.: 12 11090-11096 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 
APPENDIX D - 1 Page 8 of 11

,---------------------------------------------- --

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.l 

Wll..LIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S. 

To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

Material: ROM Salt 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG49 

SG50 

SG 51 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

June 18, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W. 30 

80' S. of Bulkhead and 4' E. of W. Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

80'S. of Bulkhead and 10' W. of E. Wall 

On Drift W.30 

80' S. of Bulkhead and 4' W. of E. Wall 

Control Density: 135.0 

ASTM D 1557 

Required Compaction: 80% 

* Does Not Meet Specifications 

Lab No.: 12 11261-11264 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

%Max %Moisture Depth 

73.3 * 0.4 7th Lift 

73.6 * 0.3 7th Lift 

74.5 * 0.3 7th Lift 

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

STD/STAT Trench Corrections 7.8 

Densometer ID: 5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 
APPENDIX D - 1 Page 9 of 11

-------------------------------------------------------------··-- - --

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG78 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E./L.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

July 13, 2012 

Location 

Bottom Zone 

Depth: 

Depth of Probe: 

Dry Density 

%Max 

80.5 

See Below 

6" 

%Moisture Depth 

0.2 Top Zone 

Lift19 

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

ASTM D 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections -4.4 

Required Compaction: 70-80% Densometer ID: 5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

Lab No.: 12 12058 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX D - 1 Page 10 of 11

To: 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES 

Wash1ngton TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P 0 . BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO Rl8 

DEBRA P HICKS, P E L S I 

WILLIAM M HICKS Ill, P F P S 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 

Test Method: ASTM: D 1556 Sand Cone 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SC2 

sc 3 

SC4 

Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted 

Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

June 7, 2012 

Location 

On W. 30 Drift 

80' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E.Wall 

(Corresponds to SG 16) 

On W. 30 Drift 

70' S. of Bulkhead and 6' W. of E. Wall 

(Corresponds to SG 19) 

On W. 30 Drift 

70' S. and 10' W. of E.Wall 

(Corresponds to SG 22) 

Control Density: 135.0 

ASTM D 1557 

Required Compaction: 85% 

• Does Not Meet Specifications 

Lab No.: 12 10897 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: N/A 

Dry Density 

% Max % Moisture 

77.9 * 1.2 

72.0 * 1.2 

74.1 * 1.1 

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

Densometer ID: N/A 

Depth 

2nd L1ft 

DepthS" 

2nd L1ft 

Depth 6" 

2nd L1ft 

Depth S" 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 
APPENDIX D - 1 Page 11 of 11

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SC5 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0 . BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R1 8 

DEBRA P HICKS, P E 'L.S I 

WILLIAM M HICKS III, P E 1' S 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 

Test Method: ASTM: D 1556 Sand Cone 

lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted 

Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

June 11, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W. 30 

80' S. of Bulkhead and 5' W. of E. Wall 

(Corresponds to SG 28) 

Depth: 

Depth of Probe: 

Dry Density 

% Max 

75.7 

See Below 

N/A 

% Moisture Depth 

1.6 3rd Lit! 

DepthS" 

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

ASTM D 1557 

Required Compaction: 85% Densometer ID: N/A 

PETIIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

Lab No.: 12 11083 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX D – 2 

Appendix D – 2 Contains The Following From Scenario 2; 

1. The Laboratory Test Reports For The Nuclear Density

 Testing Performed On The Lifts Of The Lower Zone
APPENDIX D - 2 Page 1 of 8

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG85 

SG86 

SG87 

SG88 

SG89 

SG90 

-----·-------·----------------· 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 

Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

July 25, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W. 30 

15' E. of W. Wall and 15' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

15' E. of W.Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

4' W. of E. Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

4' W. of E. Wall and 15' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

15' E. ofW.Wall and 15' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

15' E. of W.Wall and 6' S. of Salt Wall 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

% Max % Moisture 

75.0 * 0.3 

73.3 * 0.3 

74.6 * 0.3 

76.1 * 0.3 

77.8 * 0.4 

75.9 * 0.0 

Depth 

4th lift 

Bottom layer 

4th lift 

Bottom layer 

4th lift 

Bottom layer 

4th lift 

Bottom layer 

4th lift 

Bottom layer 

4th lift 

Bottom layer 

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

ASTM D 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections 12.1 

Required Compaction: 70-80% Densometer ID: 5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

Lab No.: 12 12612-12617 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX D - 2 Page 2 of 8

.----------·-----------·--------------··--······-··· .... _ ....... 

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG 91 

SG92 

SG93 

SG94 

SG95 

SG96 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.L 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

July 25, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W. 30 

5' W. of E. Wall and 6' S. of N. Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

5' W. of E. Wall and 15' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

15' E. of W. Wall and 12' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

15' E. ofW.Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

4' W. of E. Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

4' from E. Wall and 15' S. of N.Wall 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

% Max % Moisture 

72.6 * 0.2 

76.4 * 0.3 

74.9 * 0.4 

73.9 * 0.3 

75.1 * 0.3 

76.7 * 0.2 

Depth 

4th Lift 

Bottom Layer 

4th Lift 

Bottom Layer 

4th Lift 

Bottom Layer 

4th Lift 

Bottom Layer 

4th Lift 

Bottom Layer 

4th Lift 

Bottom Layer 

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

ASTM D 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections 12.1 

Required Compaction: 70-80% Densometer ID: 5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

Lab No.: 12 12618-12624 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX D - 2 Page 3 of 8

,----·--~--------· ----··--·~-------·--·-----·---------··----~ ·-------

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG97 

SG98 

SG99 

SG 100 

SG 101 

SG 102 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.J. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

July 26, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W. 30 

15' E. of W. Wall and 15' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

15' E. of W. Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W.30 

5' W. of E. Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

15' S. of Salt Wall and 5' W. of E. Wall 

On DriftW. 30 

15' E. ofW. Wall and 15' S. of Salt Wall 

On DriftW. 30 

15' E. ofW. Wall and 6' S. of Salt Wall 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

o/o Max o/o Moisture Depth 

75.3 * 0.6 On Bottom 

73.0 * 0.3 On Bottom 

74.1 * 0.5 On Bottom 

75.0 * 0.4 On Bottom 

78.3 * 0.5 On Bottom 

75.0 * 0.5 On Bottom 

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

ASTM D 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections 12.1 

Required Compaction: 70-80% Densometer ID: 5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

Lab No.: 12 12625-12630 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX D - 2 Page 4 of 8

------------------·----------·---------···-··-·---·----- ....... -- -·-·. -

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG 103 

SG 104 

SG 105 

SG 106 

SG 107 

SG 108 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.l. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. Ill, P.E./P.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

July 26, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W. 30 

6' W. of E. Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

6' W. of E. Wall and 15' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W.30 

15' E. ofW.Wall and 17' S. of Salt 

On Drift W. 30 

15' E. ofW. Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

6' W. of E. Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

6' W. of E. Wall and 15' S. of Salt Wall 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

%Max %Moisture Depth 

75.1 * 0.5 On Bottom 

73.0 * 0.5 On Bottom 

74.7 * 0.5 On Bottom 

71.5 * 0.5 On Bottom 

74.0 * 0.5 On Bottom 

76.6 * 0.4 On Bottom 

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

ASTM D 1557 STD/ST AT Trench Corrections 12. 1 

Required Compaction: 70-80% Densometer ID: 5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

Lab No.: 12 12631-12637 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX D - 2 Page 5 of 8

,----------------------------·-----------------------------------

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG 109 

SG 110 

SG 111 

SG112 

SG 113 

SG 114 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

{575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. IJJ, P.E./P.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

July 30, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W. 30 

15' E. of W. Wall and 15' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

15' E. of W. Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

5' W. of E. Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

5' W. of E. Wall and 15' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

15' E. ofW.Wall and 13' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

15' E. ofW. Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: See Below 

Dry Density 

% Max % Moisture 

74.7 * 0.0 

73.1 * 0.1 

72.6 * 0.1 

74.6 * 0.0 

76.6 * 0.0 

68.4 * 0.1 

Depth 

Probe of Depth 5" 

On Bottom 

Probe of Depth 6" 

On Bottom 

Probe of Depth 6" 

On Bottom 

Probe of Depth 6" 

On Bottom 

Probe of Depth 5" 

On Bottom 

Probe of Depth 5" 

On Bottom 

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

ASTM D 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections 6.3 

Required Compaction: 70-80% Densometer ID: 5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

Lab No.: 12 12848-12853 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX D - 2 Page 6 of 8

,--------------------------------------------------------------

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG 115 

SG 116 

SG 117 

SG 118 

SG 119 

SG 120 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E./L.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P-E./P.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

July 30, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W. 30, 

6' W. of E. Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

6' W. of E. Wal and 15' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

6' E. ofW.Wall and 15' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

15' E. ofW.Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W.30 

5' W. of E. Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

6' W. of E. Wall and 16' S. of Salt Wall 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: See Below 

Dry Density 

% Max % Moisture 

72.4 * 0.0 

74.5 * 0.0 

77.2 * 0.0 

75.5 * 0.0 

72.0 * 0.4 

75.0 * 0.7 

Depth 

Probe of Depth 5" 

On Bottom 

Probe of Depth 6" 

On Bottom 

Probe of Depth 6" 

On Bottom 

Probe of Depth 6" 

On Bottom 

Probe of Depth 6" 

On Bottom 

Probe of Depth 5" 

On Bottom 

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

ASTM D 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections 6.3 

Required Compaction: 70-80% Densometer ID: 5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

Lab No.: 12 12854-12860 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX D - 2 Page 7 of 8

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG 121 

SG 122 

SG 123 

SG 124 

SG 125 

SG 126 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. IDCKS, P.E.IL.S.I. 

WILLIAMM. IDCKS. III, P.E./P.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

July 31, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W. 30 

15' E. of W. Wall and 15' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

15' E. of W. Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

8' W. of E. Wall and 8' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

8' W. of E. Wall and 15' S.of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

15' E. ofW. Wall and 16' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

15' E. of W. Wall and 6' S. of Salt Wall 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

% Max % Moisture 

74.1 * 0.3 

72.5 * 0.3 

70.1 * 0.4 

73.3 * 0.4 

76.4 * 0.4 

74.1 * 0.3 

Depth 

On Bottom 

1oth Lift 

On Bottom 

10th Lift 

On Bottom 

10th Lift 

On Bottom 

10th Lift 

On Bottom 

10th Lift 

On Bottom 

1oth Lift 

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

ASTM D 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections 5.1 

Required Compaction: 70-80% Densometer ID: 5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

Lab No.: 12 12832-12837 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX D - 2 Page 8 of 8

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG 127 

SG 128 

SG 129 

SG 130 

SG 131 

SG 132 

_____ _______________________________ 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R1B 

DEBRA P. IDCKS, P.E.IL.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. IDCKS. UI, P.E./P.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

July 31, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W. 30 

8' S. of Salt Wall and 6' W. of E. Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

15' S.of Salt Wall and 6' W. of E.Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

15' E. ofW. Wall and 15' S. of Salt Wall 

On DriftW. 30 

15' E. of W. Wall and 1 0' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

8' W. of E. Wall and 10' S. of Salt Wall 

On Drift W. 30 

15' S. of Salt Wall and 8' W. of E. Wall 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

% Max % Moisture 

73.8 * 0.5 

75.7 * 0.5 

78.1 * 0.4 

72.1 * 0.3 

73.9 * 0.4 

76.9 * 0.4 

Depth 

On Bottom 

10th lift 

On Bottom 

10th Lift 

On Bottom 

1Oth Lift 

On Bottom 

10th lift 

On Bottom 

1Oth Lift 

On Bottom 

10th Lift 

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

ASTM D 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections 5.1 

Required Compaction: 70-80% Densometer ID: 5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

Lab No.: 12 12838-12843 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX E -1 

Appendix E – 1 Contains The Following From Scenario 1;

1. The Laboratory Test Reports For The Nuclear Density

 Testing Performed On The Lifts Of The Upper Zone

2. The Laboratory Test Reports For The Sand-Cone

 Testing Performed On The Lifts Of The Upper Zone
APPENDIX E - 1 Page 1 of 17

,--------------------·--.. ·-·---------·-------------· -- - -- ---- -- -

To: 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P .. HICKS, P.E../LSJ .. 

WILLIAM M .. HICKS. III, P .. E./P.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG52 

SG53 

SG54 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

June 26, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W. 30 

5' E. of W. Wall; 4' Below Back 

On Drift W. 30 

10' E. ofW. Wall; 4' Below Back 

On Drift W. 30 

5' W. of E. Wall; 4' Below Back 

Control Density: 135.0 

ASTM D 1557 

Required Compaction: 80% 

* Does Not Meet Specifications 

Lab No.: 12 11871-11873 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

%Max %Moisture Depth 

58.4 * 0.9 3rd Lift Upper Zone 

62.1 * 1.6 3rd Lift Upper Zone 

68.3 * 0.7 3rd Lift Upper Zone 

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

STD/STAT Trench Corrections -9.7 

Densometer ID: 5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 
APPENDIX E - 1 Page 2 of 17

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S. 

To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

Material: ROM Salt 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG55 

SG56 

SG57 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

June 26, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W. 30 

5' E. of W. Wall; 5'6" Below Back 

On Drift W. 30 

10' E. ofW. Wall; 5'6" Below Back 

On Drift W. 30 

5' W. of E. Wall; 5'6" Below Back 

Control Density: 135.0 

ASTM D 1557 

Required Compaction: 80% 

* Does Not Meet Specifications 

Lab No.: 12 11874-11876 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

%Max %Moisture Depth 

60.1 * 2.0 3rd Lift Upper Zone 

63.9 * 1.2 3rd Lift Upper Zone 

61.2 * 1.4 3rd Lift Upper Zone 

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

STD/STAT Trench Corrections -9.7 

Densometer ID: 5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 
APPENDIX E - 1 Page 3 of 17

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG60 

SG61 

SG62 

----------·---------------------------.-------··---

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. IDCKS, P.E.IL.SJ. 

WILLIAMM. IDCKS. Ill, P.E.IP.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted .Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

June 29, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W. 30 

5' E. of W. Wall; On Bottom Step; 8' Below Back 

On Drift W. 30 

12' E. of W. Wall; On Bottom Step; 8' Below Back 

On Drift W. 30 

6' E. ofW. Wall; On Middle Step; 6' Below Back 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

o/o Max o/o Moisture Depth 

64.1 * 0.6 7th Lift; Top Zone 

60.4 * 1.0 7th Lift; Top Zone 

66.8 * 0.8 7th Lift; Top Zone 

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

ASTM D 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections -2.5 

Required Compaction: 80% Densometer ID: 5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

* Does Not Meet Specifications 

Lab No.: 12 11882-11884 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX E - 1 Page 4 of 17

,-----------------·-----------·--·--------··-------·--·--·----------------------· 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT . 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. 

WILLIAMM. HICKS. III, P.E.IP.S. 

To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC Material: ROM Salt 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D6938 

Project: lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

Date of Test: June 29, 2012 Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

Test No. Location %Max %Moisture Depth 

SG63 On Drift W. 30 65.1 * 0.7 7th Lift; Top Zone 

15' E. ofW. Wall; On Middle Step; 6' Below Back 

SG64 On Drift W. 30 62.8 * 0.9 7th Lift; Top Zone 

6' E. of W. Wall; On Top Step; 4' Below Back 

SG65 On Drift W. 30 66.8 * 1.0 7th Lift; Top Zone 

6' W. of E. Wall; On Top Step; 4' Below Back 

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

ASTM D 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections -2.5 

Required Compaction: 80% Densometer ID: 5071 

PETIIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

* Does Not Meet Specifications 

Lab No.: 12 11885-11889 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX E - 1 Page 5 of 17

To: 

-----------------·--------------------·----------------- -

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG66 

SG67 

SG68 

SG69 

SG70 

SG71 

lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

July 10, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W. 30 

5' E. of W. Wall and 5' Below Back 

On DriftW. 30 

12' E. of W. Wall and 5' Below Back 

On Drift W. 30 

4' E. of W. Wall and 4' Below Back 

On Drift W. 30 

10' E. ofW. Wall and 4' Below Back 

On Drift W. 30 

5' W. of E. Wall and 3' Below Back 

On Drift W. 30 

10' E. ofW. Wall and 3' Below Back 

Control Density: 135.0 

ASTM D 1557 

Required Compaction: 80% 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

% Max % Moisture 

68.7 * 1.7 

72.9 * 1.7 

71.3 * 0.9 

70.5 * 0.4 

67.3 * 0.6 

66.0 * 1.5 

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

Depth 

Upper Zone 

Lift13 

Upper Zone 

Lift13 

Upper Zone 

Lift13 

Upper Zone 

Lift13 

Upper Zone 

Lift13 

Upper Zone 

Lift13 

STD/STAT Trench Corrections -5.3 

Densometer ID: 5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

* Does Not Meet Specifications; SG 66 Moisture lnvaild used Moisture from 

SG 67 for Correction 

Lab No.: 12 12045-12051 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX E - 1 Page 6 of 17

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG72 

SG73 

SG74 

SG75 

SG76 

SG77 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

July 13, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W. 30 

5' E. of W. Wall and 8' Below Back 

On Drift W. 30 

12' E. ofW. Wall and 8' Below Back 

On Drift W. 30 

7' E. of W. Wall and 5' Below Back 

On Drift W. 30 

4' W. of E. Wall and 5' Below Back 

On Drift W. 30 

4' E. ofW. Wall and 3W Below Back 

On Drift W. 30 

5' W. of E. Wall and 3W Below Back 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

% Max % Moisture 

55.0 * 1.7 

61.1 * 2.2 

61.0 * 1.7 

59.9 * 0.7 

60.1 * 1.8 

66.4 * 1.6 

Depth 

Top Zone 

Lift19 

Top Zone 

Lift19 

Top Zone 

Lift19 

Top Zone 

Lift19 

Top Zone 

Lift 19 

Top Zone 

Lift19 

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

ASTM D 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections -4.4 

Required Compaction: 70-80% Densometer ID: 5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

* Does Not Meet Specifications 

Lab No.: 12 12055-12059 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX E - 1 Page 7 of 17

---------------·------~-----·--·-·---------------·-----------··-·-----·---·----

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG79 

SG80 

SG81 

SG82 

SG83 

SG84 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. IDCKS, P.E.IL.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. IDCKS. III, P.E./P.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

July 23, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W. 30 

4' E. ofW. Wall and 10' Below Back 

On Drift W.30 

4' W. of E. Wall and 10' Below Back 

On Drift W. 30 

8' E. ofW. Wall and 4"W Below Back 

On Drift W. 30 

4%' W. of E. Wall and 4%' Below Back 

On Drift W. 30 

5' E. of W. Wall and 3' Below Back 

On Drift W. 30 

6' W. of E. Wall and 3' Below Back 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

% Max % Moisture 

56.4 * 2.1 

54.7 * 2.2 

64.6 * 0.6 

60.3 * 1.1 

61.0 * 1.1 

60.7 * 0.7 

Depth 

Upper Zone 

32nd Lift 

Upper Zone 

32nd Lift 

Upper Zone 

32nd Lift 

Upper Zone 

32nd Lift 

Upper Zone 

32nd Lift 

Upper Zone 

32nd Lift 

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

ASTM D 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections 6.1 

Required Compaction: 70-80% Densometer ID: 5071 

PETIIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

Lab No.: 12 12825-12831 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX E - 1 Page 8 of 17

.----------------------·----------------------------------··---------- --- - - --

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG 133 

SG 134 

SG 135 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

July 31, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W. 30 

6' E. of W. Wall and 6' Below Back 

On Drift W. 30 

6' W. of E. Wall and 5' Below Back 

On Drift W. 30 

4' E. ofW.Wall and 4' Below Back 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 5" 

Dry Density 

o/o Max o/o Moisture 

60.8 * 0.9 

59.9 * 0.9 

56.4 * 0.1 

Depth 

On Bottom 

10th Lift 

On Bottom 

1oth Lift 

On Bottom 

10th Lift 

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

ASTM D 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections 5.1 

Required Compaction: 70-80% Densometer ID: 5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

Lab No.: 12 12844-12847 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX E - 1 Page 9 of 17

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SC6 

Control Density: 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P .A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E.IP.S. 

Test Method: ASTM: D 1556 Sand Cone 

Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted 

Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

June 26, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W. 30 

10' E. of W. Wall; 4' Below Back 

(Corresponds to SG 53) 

135.0 

ASTM D 1557 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: N/A 

Dry Density 

%Max %Moisture Depth 

67.5 1.5 3rd Lift Upper Zone 

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

Required Compaction: 80% Densometer ID: N/A 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

Lab No.: 12 11881 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX E - 1 Page 10 of 17

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SC7 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. IDCKS, P.E.IL.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. IDCKS. Ill, P.E./P.S. 

Test Method: ASTM: D 1556 Sand Cone 

Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted 

Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

June 29, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W. 30 

5' E. of W. Wall; On Bottom Step; 8' Below Back 

(Corresponds to SG 60) 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: N/A 

Dry Density 

% Max % Moisture Depth 

65.0 0.6 7th lift; Top Zone 

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

ASTM D 1557 

Required Compaction: 80% Densometer ID: N/A 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

Lab No.: 12 11890 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX E - 1 Page 11 of 17

To: 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 1556 Sand Cone 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

sc 8 

Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted 

Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

June 29, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W. 30 

15' E. of W. Wall; On Middle Step; 6' Below Back 

(Corresponds to SG 63) 

Control Density: 135.0 

ASTM D 1557 

Required Compaction: 80% 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: N/A 

Dry Density 

%Max 

* 

%Moisture 

0.7 

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

Densometer ID: N/A 

Depth 

7th Lift; Top Zone 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

*Invalid Test. Technician indicated the surface was still sloped, thus the data was erroneous. 

Lab No.: 12 11891 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX E - 1 Page 12 of 17

To: 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. IDCKS, P.E./L.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E.IP.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 1556 Sand Cone 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SC9 

Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted 

Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

June 29, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W. 30 

6' W. of E. Wall; On Top Step; 4' Below Back 

(Corresponds to SG 65) 

Control Density: 135.0 

ASTM D 1557 

Required Compaction: 80% 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: N/A 

Dry Density 

%Max 

* 

%Moisture 

1.0 

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

Densometer ID: N/A 

Depth 

7th Lift; Top Zone 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

*Invalid Test. Technician indicated the surface was still sloped, thus the data was erroneous. 

Lab No.: 12 11892 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX E - 1 Page 13 of 17

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

sc 10 

Control Density: 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E./L.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E.IP.S. 

Test Method: ASTM: D 1556 Sand Cone 

Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted 

Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

July 10, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W. 30 

12' E. ofW. Wall and 5' Below Back 

(Corresponds to SG 67) 

135.0 

ASTM D 1557 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: N/A 

Dry Density 

%Max %Moisture Depth 

76.4 * 1.7 Upper Zone 

Lift13 

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

Required Compaction: 80% Densometer ID: N/A 

* Does Not Meet Specifications 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

Lab No.: 12 12046 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX E - 1 Page 14 of 17

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

sc 11 

Control Density: 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E./L.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E.IP.S. 

Test Method: ASTM: D 1556 Sand Cone 

Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted 

Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

July 10, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W. 30 

1 0' E. of W. Wall and 4' Below Back 

(Corresponds to SG 69) 

135.0 

ASTM D 1557 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: N/A 

Dry Density 

%Max %Moisture Depth 

70.2 * 0.4 Upper Zone 

Lift13 

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

Required Compaction: 80% Densometer ID: N/A 

* Does Not Meet Specifications PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

Lab No.: 12 12048 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX E - 1 Page 15 of 17

To: 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E./L.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 1556 Sand Cone 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

sc 12 

Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted 

Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

July 10, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W. 30 

1 0' E. of W. Wall and 3' Below Back 

(Corresponds to SG 71) 

Control Density: 135.0 

ASTM D 1557 

Required Compaction: 80% 

* Does Not Meet Specifications 

Lab No.: 12 12050 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: N/A 

Dry Density 

%Max %Moisture Depth 

67.6 * 1.5 Upper Zone 

lift13 

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

Densometer ID: N/A 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 
APPENDIX E - 1 Page 16 of 17

To: 

LA BORA TORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. Ill, P.E.IP.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 1556 Sand Cone 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

sc 13 

Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted 

Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

July 23, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W. 30 

4' E. ofW. Wall and 10' Below Back 

( Corresponds to SG 79 ) 

Control Density: 135.0 

ASTM D 1557 

Required Compaction: 70-80% 

* Does Not Meet Specifications 

Lab No.: 12 12825 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: N/A 

Dry Density 

%Max %Moisture Depth 

67.9 * 2.1 Upper Zone 

32nd Lift 

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

Densometer ID: N/A 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 
APPENDIX E - 1 Page 17 of 17

To: 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S. 

Test Method: ASTM: D 1556 Sand Cone 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SC14 

Lab and Field Testing Services for Compacted 

Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

July 23, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W. 30 

8' E. of W.Wall and 4Y:! Below Back 

( Corresponds to SG 81 ) 

Control Density: 135.0 

ASTM D 1557 

Required Compaction: 70-80% 

* Does Not Meet Specifications 

Lab No.: 12 12825 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: N/A 

Dry Density 

%Max %Moisture Depth 

62.1 * 0.6 Upper Zone 

32nd lift 

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

Densometer ID: N/A 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 
APPENDIX E – 2 

Appendix E – 2 Contains The Following From Scenario 2;

1. The Laboratory Test Reports For The Nuclear Density

 Testing Performed On The Lifts Of The Upper Zone
APPENDIX E - 2 Page 1 of 4

·------------------------------------------

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG 136 

SG 137 

SG 138 

SG 139 

SG 140 

SG 141 

Control Density: 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. IDCKS, P.E.IL.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. IDCKS. III, P.E./P.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

August 14, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W - 30 

3'6" E. of W. Rib and 6'3" from Back 

On Drift W - 30 

11 '2" E. of W. Rib and 6'7" from Back 

On Drift W - 30 

6'3" E. of W. Rib and 4'6" from Back 

On Drift W - 30 

13' E. ofW. Rib and 4' 3" from Back 

On Drift W - 30 

3' E. of W. Rib and 2'1 0" from Back 

On Drift W - 30 

10' E. of W. Rib and 2'9" from Back 

135.0 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 5" 

Dry Density 

%Max %Moisture Depth 

65.1 * 0.3 10th Lift 

66.5 * 0.4 10th Lift 

64.7 * 0.4 10th Lift 

65.3 * 0.4 1Oth Lift 

63.6 * 0.4 10th Lift 

62.1 * 0.4 10th Lift 

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

STD/STAT Trench Corrections -4.8 

Required Compaction: 70-80% Densometer ID: 5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

* Does Not Meet Specifications 

Lab No.: 12 12954-12960 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX E - 2 Page 2 of 4

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG 142 

SG 143 

SG 144 

SG 145 

SG 146 

SG 147 

lABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E.IL.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E.IP.S. 

Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

August 16, 2012 Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

Location % Max % Moisture 

On Salt wall W-30; 5' E. of theW. wall and 1 0' beiow 55.1 * 0.3 

back 

On Salt wall W-30; 5' W. of the E. wall and 10' below 59.0 * 0.4 

back 

On Salt wall W-30; 6' E. of theW. wall and 8' below back 61.3 * 0.4 

On Salt wall W-30; 6' W. of the E. wall and 8' below back 63.7 * 0.4 

On Salt wall W-30; 5' E. of theW. wall and 4' below back 63.6 * 0.4 

On Salt wall W-30; 6' W. of the E. wall and 4' below back 58.8 * 0.4 

Depth 

7th Lift 

7th Lift 

7th Lift 

7th Lift 

7th Lift 

7th Lift 

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

ASTM D: 1557 

Required Compaction: 70-80% 

* Does Not Meet Specifications 

Lab No.: 12 14022-14028 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

STD/STAT Trench Corrections -8.7 

Densometer ID: 5071 

BY:~----~~~~~~----~---­

BY:~~~~~~~~~~~P~.E. 
APPENDIX E - 2 Page 3 of 4

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG 148 

SG 149 

SG 150 

SG 151 

SG 152 

SG 153 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E./L.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

August 22, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W-30 

5' E. of W. Wall and 10' below back 

On Drift W-30 

6' W. of E. Wall and 1 0' below back 

On Drift W-30 

6' E. of W.Wall and 7' below back 

On Drift W-30 

5' W. of E. Wall and 7' below back 

On Drift W-30 

5' E. of W.Wall and 4' below back 

On Drift W-30 

5' W. of E. Wall and 4' below back 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

% Max % Moisture 

60.8 * 04 

61.7 * 0.3 

61.1 * 0.6 

63.1 * 0.5 

64.1 * 0.5 

63.6 * 0.4 

Depth 

27th Lift on 

Top Zone 

27th Lift on 

Top Zone 

27th Lift on 

Top Zone 

27th Lift on 

Top Zone 

27th Lift on 

Top Zone 

27th Lift on 

Top Zone 

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

ASTM D: 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections -6.0 

Required Compaction: 70-80% Densometer ID: 5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

* Does Not Meet Specifications 

Lab No.: 12 15116-15122 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX E - 2 Page 4 of 4

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG 154 

SG 155 

SG 156 

SG 157 

SG 158 

SG 159 

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R1B 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P E IL.SI 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E/P.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

August 24, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W-30 

6' E. of W. Wall and 1 0' below back 

On Drift W-30 

3' W. of E. Wall and 1 0' below back 

On Drift W-30 

6' E. of W. Wall and 7' below back 

On Drift W-30 

7' W. of E. Wall and 7' below back 

On Drift W-30 

7' E. of W. Wall and 4' below back 

On Drift W-30 

5' W. of E. Wall and 4' below back 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

% Max % Moisture 

61.7 * 0.3 

62.1 * 0.2 

61.3 * 0.4 

64.2 * 0.5 

65.3 * 0.4 

62.1 * 0.3 

Depth 

34th Lift on 

Top Zone 

34th Lift on 

Top Zone 

34th Lift on 

Top Zone 

34th Lift on 

Top Zone 

34th Lift on 

Top Zone 

34th Lift on 

Top Zone 

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

ASTM D: 1557 STD/STAT Trench Corrections 2.2 

Required Compaction: 70-80% Densometer ID: 5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

• Does Not Meet Specifications 

Lab No.: 12 15123-15129 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX E – 3 

Appendix E – 3 Contains The Following From Scenario 3;

1. The Laboratory Test Reports For The Nuclear Density

 Testing Performed On The ROM Salt Placement
APPENDIX E - 3 Page 1 of 3

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

100 E. Navajo Drive, Suite 100 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

AASHTO R18 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E./L.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E./P.S. 

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG 160 

SG 161 

SG 162 

SG 163 

SG 164 

SG 165 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 

Lab and Field Testing Services lor 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

September 5, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W-30 · 

6' E. of W. Wall and 10' below back 

On Drift W-30 

5' W. of E. Wall and 10' below back 

On Drift W-30 

6' E. of W. Wall and 7' below back 

On Drift W-30 

5' W. of E. Wall and 7' below back 

On Drift W-30 

6' E. of W. Wall and 4' below back 

On Drift W-30 

7' W. of E.Wall and 4' below back 

Control Density: 135.0 

ASTM 0: 1557 

Required Compaction: 70-80% 

• Does Not Meet Speclflcatlone 

Lab No.: 12 15887-15892 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

Material: ROM Salt 

Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

% Max % Moisture 

84.5. 0.4 

63.1 • 0.3 

68.1 * 0.5 

67.6 * 0.5 

84.8 * 0.5 

84.7 * 0.5 

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

Depth 

3rd Teat Region 

Lift 

3rd Teat Region 

Lift 

3rd Teat Region 

Lift 

3rd Test Region 

Lift 

3rd Test Region 

un 

3rd Test Region 

un 

STDISTAT Trench Corrections 2.2 

Densometer ID: 5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

P.E. 
APPENDIX E - 3 Page 2 of 3

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

100 E. Navajo Drive, Suite 100 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

AR AASI"'TO R1B 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E./L.S.I. 

WILLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E.IP.S. 

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG 168 

SG 169 

SG 170 

SG 171 

SG 172 

SG 173 

Control Density: 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

September 7, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W-30 

5' E. ofW. Wall and 10' Below Back 

On Drift W-30 

4' W. of E. Wall and 10' Below Back 

On Drift W-30 

4' E. of W. Wall and 7%' Below Back 

On Drift W-30 

4' W. of E. Wall and 7'h Below Back 

On Drift W-30 

5' E. of W. Wall and 4' Below Back 

On Drift W-30 

3' W. of E. Wall and 4' Below Back 

135.0 

ASTM D: 1557 

Required Compaction: 70-80% 

• Does Not Mast Specifications 

Lab No.: 12 15896-15902 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

Material: ROM Salt 

Test Method: ASTM: D 6938 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

% Max % Moisture 

61.6 * 0.3 

65.6 * 0.4 

65.1 * 0.4 

63.3 * 0.4 

66.9 * 0.4 

63.0 * 0.4 

Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

Densometer ID: 5071 

Depth 

3rd Test Region 

Lift 

3rd Test Region 

Lift 

3rd Test Region 

Lift 

3rd Test Region 

lift 

3rd Test Region 

Lift 

3rd Test Region 

Lift 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

P.E. 
APPENDIX E - 3 Page 3 of 3

To: 

Project: 

Date of Test: 

Test No. 

SG 174 

SG 175 

SG 176 

SG 177 

SG 178 

SG 179 

--------------------·-----------

LABORATORY TEST REPORT 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES, P:A. 

1110 N. GRIMES 

Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 

4021 NATIONAL PARKS HIGHWAY 

P. 0. BOX 2078 

HOBBS, NM 88240 

(575) 393-9827 

Material: ROM Salt 

AASHTO R1B 

DEBRA P. HICKS, P.E./L.S.I 

WtLLIAM M. HICKS. III, P.E.IP.S. 

Carlsbad, NM 8822 Test Method: · ASTM: D8938 

Lab and Field Testing Services for 

Compacted Salt Testing 

Project No. 2012.1112 

September 10, 2012 

Location 

On Drift W-30 

WR 6'8" and Back 8'0" 

On Drift W-30 

WR 13' 6" and Back 8'8" 

On Drift W-30 

WR 4'0" and Back 5'6" 

On Drift W-30 

WR 1 0' 0" and Back 6'0" 

On Drift W-30 

WR 6'0" and Back 3'0" 

On Drift W-30 

WR 12'0" and Back 3'0" 

Depth: See Below 

Depth of Probe: 6" 

Dry Density 

%Max %Moisture Depth 

71.7 * 0.3 3rd Region 

69.6 * 0.4 3rd Region 

71.0 * 0.4 3rd Region 

73.0 * 0.3 3rd Region 

70.1 * 0.4 3rd Region 

69.2 * 0.5 3rd Region 

Control Density: 135.0 Optimum Moisture: 0.0% 

ASTM D: 1557 STD/STAT 3170/511 

Required Compaction: 70-80% Donsometer ID: 5071 

PETTIGREW & ASSOCIATES 

• Does Not Moot Specifications 

Lab No.: 12 15821-15827 

Copies To: Washington TRU Solutions, LLC 
APPENDIX F – 1 

Appendix F - 1 Contains The Following From Scenario 1;

1. The Summary Sheets For The Lower Lift Placement,

 Compaction And Down Time

2. The Summary Sheets For The Upper Lift Placement,

 Compaction And Down Time

3. The Summary Sheet For The Lower And Upper Lift

 Moisture/Density Data
Time

Page 1 of 4

Lift # Emplacement 

Time Water Time Compaction Time 

2 Passes

Compaction 

Time 

4 Passes

Compaction 

Time 

6 Passes

Upper Zone 

Compaction 

Time

Down 

Time Total Time

1 150 4 31 18 18 25 246

2 180 3 17 18 19 45 282

3 150 3 16 18 19 15 221

4 91 3 14 17 15 140

5 83 3 16 18 14 134

6 92 3 14 11 14 134

7 178 3 16 16 13 50 276

Average Cubic Foot Per Hour = 181

Scenario: 1

Test Region: 1

Lower Zone Total Time (Hr) = 23.9

*Time In Minutes

Lower Zone Total Time Without Down Time (Hr) = 21.65

APPENDIX F - 1 Page 1 of 5
Time

Page 2 of 4

Lift # Emplacement 

Time Water Time Compaction Time 

2 Passes

Compaction 

Time 

4 Passes

Compaction 

Time 

6 Passes

Upper Zone 

Compaction 

Time

Down 

Time Total Time

1 15 1 85 30 131

2 8 1 100 141 250

3 12 1 79 92

4 15 1 60 90 166

5 9 1 62 72

6 15 1 80 96

7 15 1 68 84

8 13 1 63 30 107

9 11 1 60 72

10 16 1 45 62

11 19 1 47 60 127

12 13 1 33 47

Scenario: 1

Test Region: 1

*Time In Minutes

APPENDIX F - 1 Page 2 of 5
Time

Page 3 of 4

Lift # Emplacement 

Time Water Time Compaction Time 

2 Passes

Compaction 

Time 

4 Passes

Compaction 

Time 

6 Passes

Upper Zone 

Compaction 

Time

Down 

Time Total Time

13 14 1 45 60

14 13 1 66 45 125

15 15 1 60 76

16 10 1 75 86

17 13 1 46 60

18 14 1 60 75

19 10 1 55 66

20 15 1 60 120 196

21 11 1 64 76

22 9 1 46 56

23 13 1 40 54

24 15 1 45 61

Scenario: 1

Test Region: 1

*Time In Minutes

APPENDIX F - 1 Page 3 of 5
Time

Page 4 of 4

Lift # Emplacement 

Time Water Time Compaction Time 

2 Passes

Compaction 

Time 

4 Passes

Compaction 

Time 

6 Passes

Upper Zone 

Compaction 

Time

Down 

Time Total Time

25 14 1 50 65

26 15 1 53 30 99

27 14 1 48 63

28 13 1 52 66

29 13 1 54 68

30 11 1 45 57

31 11 1 48 60

32 15 1 60 76

Scenario: 1

Test Region: 1

*Time In Minutes

Upper Zone Total Time (Hr) = 47.5

Upper Zone Total Time Without Down Time (Hr) = 38.4

Averae Cubic Foot Per Hour = 162

APPENDIX F - 1 Page 4 of 5
AVERAGE

Scenario: 1

Test Region: 1 Page 1 of 1

Date Lift #

Compactor 

Type

Avg. Compactor 

Speed (ft/min)

Cumulative 

Number of 

Compaction 

(No. of 

Passes)

Maximum 

Density % 

Minimum 

Density %

Avg. Wet 

Density %

Avg. 

Moisture %

Avg. Dry 

Density %

6/5/12-6/15/12 1 - 7 ROLLER 132.28 2 77.4 71.8 75.1 1.6 74.1

6/5/12-6/15/12 1 - 7 ROLLER 141.31 4 76.6 72.4 75.8 1.7 74.5

6/5/12-6/15/12 1 - 7 ROLLER 148.12 6 78.2 73.3 76.0 1.4 74.8

UPPER ZONE

6/26/12-6/29/12 3-7 PUSHPLATE W/VIBRATION 1 68.3 58.4 64.1 1.1 63.3

7/10/12-7/11/12 13-32 1 72.6 54.6 64.2 1.4 63.3

68.3 58.4 64.1 1.2 63.4

72.9 59.9 65.4 1.3 64.6

7' From Back 68.7 54.7 62.5 1.4 61.5

PUSHPLATE W/O VIBRATION

3' From Back

5' From Back

APPENDIX F - 1 Page 5 of 5
APPENDIX F – 2 

Appendix F - 2 Contains The Following From Scenario 2;

1. The Summary Sheets For The Lower Lift Placement,

 Compaction And Down Time

2. The Summary Sheets For The Upper Lift Placement,

 Compaction And Down Time

3. The Summary Sheet For The Lower And Upper Lift

 Moisture/Density Data
Lower Zone

Scenario: 2

Test Region: 2 Time

Page 1 of 3

Time in minutes unless otherwise noted:

Lift #

Emplacement 

Time Water Time

Compaction 

Time 

2 Passes

Compaction 

Time 

4 Passes

Compaction 

Time 

6 Passes

Upper Zone 

Compaction 

Time Down Time Total Time

1 45 0 10 6 6 N/A 0 67

2 37 N/A 0 61

3 N/A

4 0 7 9 7 N/A 0 61

5 40 0 N/A 0 64

6 8 11 9 N/A 66

7 31 N/A 55

8 0 8 8 9 N/A 0 63

9 N/A

10 0 7 9 7 N/A 0 61

Avg. 38 0 8 9 8 N/A 0 62

*segment averages used to fill missing data

Lower Zone Total Time (Hr)* = 10.3

Lower Zone Total Time Without Down Time (Hr)* = 10.3

Average Cubic Foot Per Hour = 283

APPENDIX F - 2 Page 1 of 4
Lower Zone

Scenario: 2

Test Region: 2 Time

Page 2 of 3

Time in minutes unless otherwise noted:

Lift #

Emplacement 

Time Water Time

Compaction 

Time 

2 Passes

Compaction 

Time 

4 Passes

Compaction 

Time 

6 Passes

Upper Zone 

Compaction 

Time Down Time Total Time

1 29 0 N/A N/A N/A 63 0 92

2 13 0 N/A N/A N/A 36 0 49

4 10 0 N/A N/A N/A 70 0 80

5 5 0 N/A N/A N/A 55 0 60

6 10 0 N/A N/A N/A 65 0 75

7 10 0 N/A N/A N/A 35 0 45

13 0 N/A N/A N/A 23 0 36

14 9 0 N/A N/A N/A 27 0 36

15 27 0 N/A N/A N/A 32 10 69

16 15 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 15

18 N/A N/A N/A 0 45

19 N/A N/A N/A 0 55

20 25 0 N/A N/A N/A 41 0 66

21 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 50

22 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 35

23 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 38

24 12 0 N/A N/A N/A 32 0 44

25 8 0 N/A N/A N/A 40 0 48

APPENDIX F - 2 Page 2 of 4
Lower Zone

Scenario: 2

Test Region: 2 Time

Page 3 of 3

Time in minutes unless otherwise noted:

Lift #

Emplacement 

Time Water Time

Compaction 

Time 

2 Passes

Compaction 

Time 

4 Passes

Compaction 

Time 

6 Passes

Upper Zone 

Compaction 

Time Down Time Total Time

26 6 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 49

28 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 48

29 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 48

30 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 49

31 0 N/A N/A N/A 43 0 43

32 11 0 N/A N/A N/A 43 0 54

33 8 0 N/A N/A N/A 42 0 50

34 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 40

35 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 42

36 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 28

38 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 35

39 7 0 N/A N/A N/A 37 0 44

40 8 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 51

Avg. 13 43 0 49

Average Cubic Foot Per Hour = 239

*segment averages used to fill missing data

Upper Zone Total Time (Hr)* = 32.7

Upper Zone Total Time Without Down Time (Hr) = 32.5

APPENDIX F - 2 Page 3 of 4
Test Region: 2 Page 1 of 1

Date Lift #

Compactor 

Type

Avg. Compactor 

Speed (ft/min)

Cumulative 

Number of 

Compaction 

(No. of 

Passes)

Maximum 

Density %

Minimum 

Density %

Avg. Wet 

Density %

Avg. Moisture 

%

Avg. Dry 

Density %

7/25/12-7/26/12 1 - 6 ROLLER 98 2 76.1 73.0 75.0 0.4 74.6

7/25/12-7/26/12 1 - 6 ROLLER 73.5 4 78.3 72.6 76.4 0.4 75.5

7/25/12-7/26/12 1 - 6 ROLLER 100.2 6 77.3 71.5 75.8 0.4 74.7

7/26/12- 7/30/12 7 - 8 LHD 93.5 2 74.7 72.6 73.8 0.1 73.8

7/26/12- 7/30/13 7 - 8 LHD 93.5 4 76.6 68.4 73.0 0.0 73.0

7/26/12- 7/30/14 7 - 7 LHD 83.1 6 77.2 72.0 74.9 0.3 74.9

7/30/12-7/31/12 9 - 10 LHD 95.0 2 74.1 70.1 72.5 0.4 72.5

7/30/12-7/31/13 9 - 10 LHD 83.1 4 76.4 73.8 75.4 0.4 75.0

7/30/12-7/31/14 9 - 10 LHD 95.0 6 78.1 76.9 75.6 0.4 75.3

UPPER ZONE

8/8/12-8/24/12 1 - 40 1 66.5 55.1 62.7 0.4 62.5

65.3 58.8 63.1 0.4 62.9

65.3 61.1 63.4 0.5 63.1

66.5 55.1 61.7 0.3 61.5

PUSHPLATE W/O VIBRATION

Distance From Back

3' From Back

5' From Back

7' From Back

Scenario: 2

AVERAGE

LHD - Empty Bucket

Roller Compactor

LHD - Full Bucket

APPENDIX F - 2 Page 4 of 4
APPENDIX F - 3 

Appendix F – 3 Contains The Following From Scenario 3;

1. The Summary Sheets For ROM Salt Placement And Down Time

2. The Summary Sheet For The Moisture/Density Data
Time

Lift #

Emplacement 

Time Water Time

Compaction Time 

2 Passes

Compaction Time 

4 Passes

Compaction Time 

6 Passes

Upper Zone 

Compaction Time Down Time Total Time

1 6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 6

2 82 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 82

3 37 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 37

4 33 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 33

5 33 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 33

6 29 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 30

7 29 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 30

8 31 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 36

9 20 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 20

Scenario 3

Test Region 3

Page 1 of 3

Zone total time (hr) =14.5

Zone total time without down time (hr) = 14.1

Average cubic foot per hour = 690

APPENDIX F - 3 Page 1 of 4
Time

Lift #

Emplacement 

Time Water Time

Compaction Time 

2 Passes

Compaction Time 

4 Passes

Compaction Time 

6 Passes

Upper Zone 

Compaction Time Down Time Total Time

10 21 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 21

11 22 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 22

12 22 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 22

13 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 25

14 21 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 33

15 41 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 41

16 39 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 39

17 39 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 39

18 34 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 34

19 19 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 7 26

Page 2 of 3

Scenario 3

Test Region 3

APPENDIX F - 3 Page 2 of 4
Time

Lift #

Emplacement 

Time Water Time

Compaction Time 

2 Passes

Compaction Time 

4 Passes

Compaction Time 

6 Passes

Upper Zone 

Compaction Time Down Time Total Time

20 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 25

21 27 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 27

22 24 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 24

23 28 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 28

24 44 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 44

25 27 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 27

26 21 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 21

27 20 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 20

28 24 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 24

29 23 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 23

Page 3 of 3

Scenario 3

Test Region 3

APPENDIX F - 3 Page 3 of 4
Test Region: 3 Page 1 of 1

Date Lift #

Compactor 

Type

Avg. Compactor 

Speed (ft/min)

Cumulative 

Number of 

Compaction 

(No. of 

Passes)

Maximum 

Density %

Minimum 

Density %

Avg. Wet 

Density %

Avg. Moisture 

%

Avg. Dry 

Density %

9/4/12 - 9/5/12 1 - 5 N/A N/A N/A 68.1 63.1 65.8 0.5 65.5

9/5/12 - 9/7/12 6 -17 N/A N/A N/A 66.9 61.6 64.0 0.4 64.3

9/7/12 - 9/8/12 18 - 29 N/A N/A N/A 73.0 69.2 70.4 0.4 70.8

70.1 63.0 66.7 0.5 66.5

73.0 63.3 68.2 0.4 68.0

71.7 63.1 65.2 0.4 66.0

Scenario: 3

3' From Back

5' From Back

8' From Back

AVERAGE

APPENDIX F - 3 Page 4 of 4
APPENDIX G

Appendix G Contains The Following;

1. The Data Sheet For The Walk-Behind Vibratory Roller

 Compactor Used To Compact The Lower Lifts

2. The Data Sheet For The LHD Used To Place The Lower

 And Upper Lifts

3. The Data Sheet For The Fletcher Scaler Used To Pushup

 And Compact Upper Zone Lifts
APPENDIX G Page 1 of 3

• Locations 

• New Products 

• Manuals 

t Spare Parts 

• Mach1nes 

• FAQs 

• Request a Product Demo 

W-'CII<Eit 

NEU~;ON 

p p 

Locatot" Products Service Ubrary About us 

) Home > Product Guide - Machones > RO 7H-CS 

RD 7H-·ES Double Drum Vibratory Roller 

Item Number. 0009408 

r It Requ= o product deononslrllfion or training 

I> rond your deoler 

Description Technical Data Accassones Manuals Brochures Like Models 

Descri1ption Metric Imperial 

Length x width x height 2631 X 697.9 X 1166 mm 103.6 X 27.48 X 45.9 in 

(handle• in working position) 

Length x width x height 1226.8 X 697.9 X 2215 mm 48.3 X 27.48 X 87.2 in 

(guide handle in transport 

position) 

Shipping size 1473 X 914 X 231 1 mm 58 X 36 X 91 in 

Dry W:•ight n2.s kg 1703 lb 

Operating weight 829.6 kg 1829 lb 

Shipping weight (including 795.1 kg 1753 lb 

packaging) 

Drum width 650 mm 25.5 in 

Drum diameter 420 mm 16.52 in 

Curb clearance (R/L) 233.7 I 233.7 mm 9.2 / 9.2 in 

Side cl1 ~arance (R/L) 29.5/29.5 mm 1.16 / 1.16 in 

Water tank capacity 53 14 US gal 

Sprinkling system gravity fed gravity fed 

Engine Type Hatz, diesel 

Fuel type Diesel Diesel 

Startino system Electric Start or Hand crank Electric Start or Hand crank 

Displac:ement 445 cm3 27.2 in3 

Max. Rated Power at Rated 6.1 kW at 2600 rpm 8.2 hp at 2600 rpm 

Speed" 

Power Rating Specification ISO 3046/1 IFN ISO 3046/1 IFN 

Operating speed 2600 1/min 2600 rpm 

Fuel consumption 1.63 1/h .43 US gallh 

Fuel tank capacity 5 1.3 US gal 

Hydraulic tank capacity 30 8 US gal 

Dynamic (centrifugal) force 13 kN 2921.5 lbf 

Freque·ncy 55 Hz 3300 vpm 

Static l1inear force per drum 5.01 /7.51 N/mm 28.69 / 43.04 lblin 

(fir) 

Dynamic linear force per 10.03/10.03 N/mm 57.28 / 57.28 lblin 

drum (1'/r) 

Total linear force per drum 15.04 / 17.54 N/rnm 85.97 /100.32 lbfln 

(fir) 

Static weight per drum (fir) 331.8 / 497.8 kg 731 .6 / 1097.4 lb 

Variable speeds - Forward 0-4.0 kmlh 0-2.5 mph 

Variable speeds - Forward 0-67 m/min 0-220 ftlmin 

Variable speeds · Reverse 0-2.0 kmlh 0-1.2 mph 

Variable speeds· Reverse 0-32 m/min 0-105 ftlmin 

Gradenbility without vibration 40 % 40 % 

POZEI? 6LAP£ WITH 

"FLOAI" CAPA/3/J.JT't"----

r 

MAX. CUTTIN4 HEI4HT: ZZ'

MAX. .V!t>TH: 29'- 2

, 0 

HYPI(AU

.,,o• KOTATION 

7'·0" 

I . l,l.n ll((,p--1 '11 -=::::::::::-___ 

t_ CJL n(i/ . 

.. 

I 

I (125/mm) 5 I 

_app_ro><. 76'·8" (11,781. mtt!) WITH He.AP 

_appro)(. 1l'·o• (9]5-f,m) WITH 1CALI.V4 CLAW 

, .. •.o• (/O,Jt.] ,.,,.) ki!TH 1CALI/V4 HAMME!t 

.,. ...... ._....,.._ .............. .....,.,.,.,,...,.. 

rToct"t-- ' I 

• .,....,. OK. ·'' t -- 

::::".::.!:.::.!"'..::.=-::::=::.:: OM. .JUJ- 10\II,!I.UNT COfiii'OAATIO

,..,.. ...................................... .,_... ,.,..tl-- ,A. ... Nt 

... .......... ..... A1rN:wU: H1T·N6 r:=-.. 

SV•<f.0/11·% """' 11'<11,.,,.,.