Errata for “Field Evaluation of Crushed Glass-Dredged Material Blends” by Dennis G. Grubb, Atwood F. Davis, Steven C. Sands, Michael Carnivale, III, Joseph Wartman, and Patricia M. Gallagher
The following should replace Equation (1) in the original paper to determine the CG content of the CG-DM blend :
(1)
This change also requires modification to Table 2 and Fig. 5 which contain data regarding the calculated CG contents (overall and by lift) and their statistics. The use of the corrected Eq. (1) has produced minor shifts in overall blending performance, yet well within the specified tolerance limits for the entire embankments. In this regard, the main discussion remains unaffected by this change. However, the impact on individual sample (Table 2) and stockpile (Table 2, Fig. 5) results has meant that some values are now slightly noncompliant due to the increased variance. The change in results is through no fault of the pug-milling contractor who complied with the QA/QC data provided under the original equation to guide field adjustments to the blending strategies.
Fig. 5. CG-DM embankment dry density versus embankment lift number
Table 2. CG-DM Blend Stockpile Characteristics
CG-DM blends
Units
Targeted CG content
% by weight
20.00
50.00
80.00
Mean CG content
% by weight
22.43
50.05
76.77
CG Standard Deviation
% by weight
6.58
6.64
3.61
Mean Fines content
% by weight
63.47
41.23
19.71
Samples Collected
25
24
23
Samples outside of
12
14
9
by weight
Stockpiles outside of
2
1
2
by weight
Mean content
% by weight
31.55
20.01
12.60
Standard Deviation
% by weight
1.58
2.67
1.29
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.