Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />consolidation process. For the sw-charBe times considered (1 to 2 years). no other <br />WOund re"leli;Ation technique is anticipated to be more economical. <br /> <br />A3 ~hown in Table 2 and illustrated in Figures 3 and 4, tho costs oftbe vvious scenarios <br />dlat have bc:cn coIISidered nnge nom $149.000 per ecre to $242.000 per acre. The costS <br />ere higher for shona SUlQlusrgo times and wgCl' dcaign loadings and lower for the <br />convene. Although Dot evaluated in this lIudy, the same pattern will bold for the <br />allowable poSl-wllSlrUClion xtLlcmC:Il1 t.olQ'~c; a IDO~ stringent value: (i.c., < (; inc:h<::s) <br />will increase costs while a more liberal value (i.e., > 6 inches) will decrease costS. <br /> <br />. As shown in Figure 5, tho estimated costs are bigbly dependent on the assumed cost of <br />fUL A value of 55.S0/c.y. has been used iIllhis study, which is likely a conservative <br />wluc. A review of the average bid price fOr dcusity controlled embankment fill on <br />Ten..c Department ofTJ'RtI9~tU1ion. projects in the HoUlton uea indicates that unit costs <br />for large quantities of fill (i.c., > 200,000 cubic yards) have generaUy ranged up to <br />$5.00Jc.y. with the most common value appaceally near S3.00/c.y.. S~e the fill is such <br />an important factor in the stabiliDtion costs, aad since the stabilization will involve such <br />. large quantity of fill that will be needed at an unkno~ date, we intentionally cho$(; a <br />unit cost tQwards the high end of the given nmge or valUes. Additionally, as noted <br />pteviowrly. we have not ~ 0 salvago waluc to ~ 5urchBrp tIll cor have we <br />usumed lbat the development oftbe contaiDer yard would oec:ur ~ stages (ie., fill will <br />DOt be.able to be re-used 00. aito). <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />( <br />J <br />r <br />r <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Although our assumptions regardiag fill costs are probabJy conservative, tho <br />188umptions regarding the soil properties and parameters that were used in our <br />~~t analyses mayor bY DO' be ClODSerYative.. There is relatively Jinle da.la <br /> <br />4 <br />Based. OIl "nclrmaJ" oquipmGll and labor CCI5U for e:anh"Uk . . <br />WU'eahlltitaUy law for Spilman, 1.lomd, unl..... borrow . ~oa. we beheve that this fiaure is <br />soun;e .1 va)' dose 10 Ihe sicc. ' . <br />20 <br /> <br />"'---- <br /> <br />. - ---- <br /> <br />S~ ~d <br /> <br />~_. <br /> <br />---- <br /> <br />---.~. <br />NOSNDWa3/A3~i~g <br /> <br />t6tJ t~~8 t8~ <br /> <br />ea:Et t~e~/B~/5e <br /> <br />S&ME Spillman Report.max <br />