DOCSLIB.ORG

Saltstone Disposal Facility Closure Cap Concept and Infiltration Estimates

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Saltstone Disposal Facility Closure Cap Concept and Infiltration Estimates WSRC-STI-2008-00244 Key Words: Saltstone Disposal Facility Closure Cap Infiltration Performance Assessment Retention: Permanent SALTSTONE DISPOSAL FACILITY CLOSURE CAP CONCEPT AND INFILTRATION ESTIMATES W. E. Jones M. A. Phifer MAY 2008 Savannah River National Laboratory Washington Savannah River Company Savannah River Site Aiken, SC 29808 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Under Contract Number DE-AC09-96SR18500 WSRC-STI-2008-00244 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared for the United States Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC09-96SR18500 and is an account of work performed under that contract. Neither the United States Department of Energy, nor WSRC, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for accuracy, completeness, or usefulness, of any information, apparatus, or product or process disclosed herein or represents that its use will not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, name, manufacturer or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favoring of same by Washington Savannah River Company or by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Printed in the United States of America Prepared For U.S. Department of Energy WSRC-STI-2008-00244 Key Words: Saltstone Disposal Facility Closure Cap Infiltration Performance Assessment Retention: Permanent SALTSTONE DISPOSAL FACILITY CLOSURE CAP CONCEPT AND INFILTRATION ESTIMATES W. E. Jones M. A. Phifer MAY 2008 Savannah River National Laboratory Washington Savannah River Company Savannah River Site Aiken, SC 29808 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Under Contract Number DE-AC09-96SR18500 WSRC-STI-2008-00244 REVIEWS AND APPROVALS - iii - WSRC-STI-2008-00244 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................. vii LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................viii LIST OF ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................... x 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 5 3.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 7 3.1 SDF BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 7 3.2 BACKGROUND WATER BALANCE AND INFILTRATION STUDIES........... 19 4.0 SDF CLOSURE CAP SCOPING LEVEL CONCEPT ............................................... 21 4.1 SDF CLOSURE CAP SCOPING LEVEL LAYOUT .............................................. 21 4.1.1 Closure Cap Layout Scenario:............................................................................. 21 4.2 SDF CLOSURE CAP SCOPING LEVEL PHYSICAL STABILITY REQUIREMENTS.................................................................................................... 24 4.3 SDF CLOSURE CAP SCOPING LEVEL LAYERS AND FUNCTIONALITY .. 25 4.4 SDF CLOSURE CAP SCOPING LEVEL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTABILITY ..................................................................................................................................... 29 4.4.1 Lower Drainage Layer Above Each Disposal Cell............................................. 32 4.4.2 Lower Backfill ....................................................................................................... 33 4.4.3 Foundation Layer.................................................................................................. 33 4.4.4 Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL) Atop the Finished Foundation Layer ........... 33 4.4.5 High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Geomembrane Atop the Foundation Layer .......................................................................................................................................... 34 4.4.6 Geotextile Fabric ................................................................................................... 35 4.4.7 Upper Lateral Drainage Layer ............................................................................ 35 4.4.8 Geotextile Filter Fabric......................................................................................... 36 4.4.9 Middle Backfill ...................................................................................................... 37 4.4.10 Geotextile Fabric ................................................................................................. 38 4.4.11 Erosion Barrier.................................................................................................... 38 4.4.12 Upper Backfill...................................................................................................... 41 4.4.13 Topsoil ..................................................................................................................42 4.4.14 Vegetative Cover ................................................................................................. 42 4.4.15 Toe of Closure Cap Side Slope........................................................................... 43 4.4.16 Closure Cap Side Slopes ..................................................................................... 44 4.4.17 Integrated Drainage System............................................................................... 45 5.0 UNDEGRADED CAP INFILTRATION ESTIMATE METHOD............................. 46 5.1 HELP MODEL USE AND DESCRIPTION............................................................. 46 5.2 HELP MODEL WEATHER INPUT DATA............................................................. 48 5.3 HELP MODEL GENERAL INPUT DATA.............................................................. 60 5.4 HELP MODEL LAYER INPUT DATA ................................................................... 61 5.4.1 Topsoil HELP Model Inputs ................................................................................ 61 5.4.2 Upper, Middle, and Lower Backfill HELP Model Inputs................................. 64 5.4.3 Erosion Barrier HELP Model Inputs.................................................................. 66 5.4.4 Upper Lateral Drainage Layer HELP Model Inputs ........................................ 66 5.4.5 HDPE Geomembrane HELP Model Inputs........................................................ 67 5.4.6 GCL HELP Model Inputs .................................................................................... 69 - iv - WSRC-STI-2008-00244 5.4.7 Foundation Layer HELP Model Inputs.............................................................. 70 5.4.8 HELP Model Layer Summary Input Data ......................................................... 70 5.5 HELP MODEL RUNOFF INPUT DATA................................................................. 72 6.0 POTENTIAL SDF CLOSURE CAP DEGRADATION MECHANISMS ................ 73 6.1 POTENTIAL STATIC LOADING AND SEISMIC INDUCED DEGRADATION ..................................................................................................................................... 75 6.2 POTENTIAL VEGETATIVE COVER DEGRADATION MECHANISMS ........ 76 6.3 POTENTIAL SOIL ABOVE THE EROSION BARRIER DEGRADATION MECHANISMS......................................................................................................... 81 6.3.1 Erosion.................................................................................................................... 81 6.3.2 Desiccation (wet-dry cycles) ................................................................................. 82 6.4 POTENTIAL EROSION BARRIER DEGRADATION MECHANISMS ............ 84 6.4.1 Weathering (Dissolution)...................................................................................... 84 6.4.2 Biological (root penetration, burrowing animals).............................................. 86 6.5 POTENTIAL LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER DEGRADATION MECHANISMS......................................................................................................... 89 6.5.1 Silting-in ................................................................................................................. 89 6.5.2 Biological (root penetration) ................................................................................ 91 6.6 POTENTIAL HDPE GEOMEMBRANE DEGRADATION MECHANISMS..... 91 6.6.1 Ultraviolet (UV) Degradation............................................................................... 91 6.6.2 Antioxidant Depletion........................................................................................... 92 6.6.2.1 Hsuan and Koerner (1998) Antioxidant Depletion Study........................... 92 6.6.2.2 Sangam and Rowe (2002) Antioxidant Depletion Study ............................. 95 6.6.2.3 Mueller and Jakob (2003) Antioxidant Depletion Study ............................ 98 6.6.2.4 Summary of Antioxidant Depletion Studies............................................... 101 6.6.3 Thermal Oxidative Degradation........................................................................ 104 6.6.4 High Energy Irradiation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • WSRC-STI-2007-00184, Rev. 2
    WSRC-STI-2007-00184, REVISION 2 Key Words: F-Area Tank Farm Closure Cap Infiltration Performance Assessment Retention: Permanent FTF CLOSURE CAP CONCEPT AND INFILTRATION ESTIMATES M. A. Phifer W. E. Jones E. A. Nelson M. E. Denham M. R. Lewis E. P. Shine OCTOBER 2007 Savannah River National Laboratory Washington Savannah River Company Savannah River Site Aiken, SC 29808 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Under Contract Number DE-AC09-96SR18500 WSRC-STI-2007-00184, REVISION 2 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared for the United States Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC09-96SR18500 and is an account of work performed under that contract. Neither the United States Department of Energy, nor WSRC, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for accuracy, completeness, or usefulness, of any information, apparatus, or product or process disclosed herein or represents that its use will not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, name, manufacturer or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favoring of same by Washington Savannah River Company or by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Printed in the United States of America Prepared For U.S. Department of Energy WSRC-STI-2007-00184, REVISION 2 Key Words: F-Area Tank Farm Closure Cap Infiltration Performance Assessment Retention: Permanent FTF CLOSURE CAP CONCEPT AND INFILTRATION ESTIMATES M.
    [Show full text]
  • Physical and Chemical Tests of the Commercial Marbles of the United
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Technologic Papers of THE Bureau of Standards S. W. STRATTON, Director No. 123 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL TESTS ON THE COMMERCIAL MARBLES OF THE UNITED STATES BY D. W. KESSLER, Assistant Engineer Physicist Bureau of Standards ISSUED JULY 15, 1919 PRICE, 15 CENTS Sold only by the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office Washington, D. C. WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1919 1 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL TESTS ON THE COM- MERCIAL MARBLES OF THE UNITED STATES By D. W. Kessler CONTENTS Page I. Introduction 3 II. Purpose of stone testing 4 III. Selection of samples for test 6 IV. Preparation of test specimens 7 V. Compression tests 8 VI. Transverse strength tests 1 VII. Tensile tests 12 VIII. Effect of freezing and thawing 13 IX. Effect of soaking in water 15 X. Effect of repeated temperature changes 16 XI. Absorption tests 17 XII. Apparent specific gravity 19 XIII. True specific gravity 21 XIV. Porosity 22 XV. Staining tests 22 XVI. Permeability tests 23 XVII. Chemical analysis 24 XVIII. Volume-resistivity tests 25 XIX. Carbonic-acid tests 26 XX. Thermal expansion of marble 28 XXI. Warping of marble 31 XXII. The sample collection 32 XXIII. Summary 33 XXIV. Tables 1 to 12 34 I. INTRODUCTION In the year 19 14 plans were made by the United States Geo- logical Survey, Bureau of Mines, Office of Public Roads, and the Bureau of Standards for a cooperative study of the various deposits of stone in the United States. The part of this work undertaken by the Bureau of Standards is the determination of the physical and chemical properties of the stone to establish its value for use in masonry structures.
    [Show full text]
  • Decision Making Factors Leading to the Substitute Method Over In-Kind
    Clemson University TigerPrints All Theses Theses 5-2017 Choices of Contention: Decision Making Factors Leading to the Substitute Method Over In-Kind Repairs and Their ffecE tiveness at Lyndhurst Estate Kirsten Anne Freeman Clemson University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses Recommended Citation Freeman, Kirsten Anne, "Choices of Contention: Decision Making Factors Leading to the Substitute Method Over In-Kind Repairs and Their Effectiveness at Lyndhurst Estate" (2017). All Theses. 2624. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses/2624 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHOICES OF CONTENTION: DECISION MAKING FACTORS LEADING TO THE SUBSTITUTE METHOD OVER IN-KIND REPAIRS AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS AT LYNDHURST ESTATE A Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University and College of Charleston In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science Historic Preservation by Kirsten Anne Freeman May 2017 Accepted by: Dr. Carter Hudgins, Committee Chair Dr. Stephanie Crette Frances H. Ford 1 ABSTRACT Lyndhurst Mansion, located in Tarrytown, New York is a masterpiece of American Gothic Revival architecture designed by Alexander Jackson Davis beginning in 1838. Since its acquisition by the National Trust in 1961, the property has carried out a number of repairs to the mansion and other buildings on the estate in which a substitute material was chosen over an in-kind material. Financial constraints appear to be the driving force behind these decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Catalog of Publications and Products
    National Center for Preservation Technology & Training PTT Products Catalog of Technology Serving the Future Publications of America’s Heritage and Products 1 • National Center for Preservationwww.ncptt.nps.gov Technology and Training About NCPTT NCPTT conducts preservation in preservation by promoting historic technology research preservation training and education NCPTT undertakes opportunities for professionals through research at its in-house projects like the NCPTT Preservation Lee H. Nelson Hall laboratories, which Home of NCPTT Engineering Initiative. include an environmental NCPTT serves as a Clearinghouse and CPTT advances the chamber that allows Web Portal Napplication of science researchers to test the and technology to historic effects of pollutants on cultural materials. NCPTT’s website and publications enable preservation. Working in the Center to deliver the latest news about the fields of archeology, More widely, the Center stimulates new architecture, landscape research through its nationwide grants preservation technologies to a variety of architecture and materials program. audiences. Also, NCPTT supports the conservation, the Center distribution of preservation information accomplishes its mission through through its grants and partnerships. training, education, research, NCPTT provides grants, creates technology transfer and partnerships NCPTT teaches preservation for partnerships. NCPTT maintains a broad partnership future generations base that includes National Park Service NCPTT was created by NCPTT’s Heritage Education program Congress in 1992 to develop sites; other federal agencies; state and tribal and disseminate preservation historic preservation offices; universities; conveys to our youngest citizens the technologies and to train private corporations; and local, state, power of place and the stories behind our practitioners in new national and international non-profit irreplaceable technologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1823E1837
    Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 1823e1837 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Archaeological Science journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas Evaluating effects of chemical weathering and surface contamination on the in situ provenance analysis of building stones in the Cuzco region of Peru with portable XRF Dennis Ogburn a,*, Bill Sillar b, Julio César Sierra c a University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd, Charlotte, NC 28223, United States b University College, London, United Kingdom c Ministerio de Cultura, Cusco, Peru article info abstract Article history: As the only type of instrument capable of determining artifact geochemistry in a wide variety of settings, Received 12 April 2012 portable X-Ray Fluorescence (PXRF) may be frequently utilized as probably the best option for collecting Received in revised form data when removal of objects in part or in whole is unfeasible. However, using PXRF in circumstances 2 September 2012 where sample selection and preparation diverge from standards developed for lab-based instrumenta- Accepted 20 September 2012 tion requires assessing the impact of new and potentially limiting factors to establish the validity of the method in these new contexts. Here we examine the effects of surface contamination and chemical Keywords: weathering on the ability to assess provenance of igneous building stones used in the Cuzco region of Portable XRF PXRF Peru. Surface contamination was assessed through comparing low-impact cleaning methods on diorite Building stone provenance and andesite blocks, and weathering was examined by comparing weathered vs. fresh surfaces of Cuzco samples from two andesite quarries.
    [Show full text]
  • Physical Properties of the Principal Commercial Limestones Used for Building Construction in the United States
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF STANDARDS George K. Burgess, Director TECHNOLOGIC PAPERS OF THE BUREAU OF STANDARDS, No. 349 [Part of Vol. 21] PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMERCIAL LIMESTONES USED FOR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES BY D. W. KESSLER, Research Associate W. H. SLIGH, Associate Physicist Bureau of Standards July 23, 1927 PRICE 30 CENTS $1.25 Per volume on subscription Sold only by the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office Washington, D. C. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1927 T349 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMER- CIAL LIMESTONES USED FOR BUILDING CONSTRUC- TION IN THE UNITED STATES By D. W. Kessler and W. H. Sligh ABSTRACT This paper is devoted mainly to the physical properties of the limestones used in this country for building purposes. Determinations of the strength of these materials in compression, flexure, and shear have been made, as well as a few- measurements of tensile strength. In general, these properties were determined both perpendicular and parallel to the bedding. Compressive strengths have been determined also in the wet and dry conditions. Impact tests were made, since it is believed that the resistance to impact affords some information as to whether a material will be easily defaced in those parts of structures which are subjected to accidental blows. Elasticity measurements have been made on the materials in compression and in flexure, the latter determination being made mainly to compare the results obtained by the two methods. Permeability tests on some of the specimens in connection with absorption and porosity tests have afforded considerable information on the internal structure of the different mate- rials.
    [Show full text]
  • Building Stone Institute (BSI) for Names of Qualified Firms Experienced in Cleaning Exterior Stone
    RECOMMENDED BEST PRACTICES CONTENTS 1. Scope 2. Geologic Categories of Stone 3. Trade Classification of Stone Granite Marble Sandstone 4. Natural Stone Uses 5. Finishes 6. Installation Methods Horizontal Installation Vertical Installation 7. Recommended Test Methods 8. Selection of Type and Finish 9. Design Principles 10. Anchoring 11. Recommended Safety Factors for Calculating Stone Slab Thickness for Windload and Lateral Anchoring 12. Jointing Design 13. Flashing 14. Fabrication 15. Shipping and Storage 16. Survey, Layout, and Field Measurements 17. Supervision 18. Protection, Cleaning and Maintenance 19. Guidelines for Stone Repair 20. Reference List 1. SCOPE 1.1 The following material is intended to provide basic guide lines for the architect, engineer, stone contractor, stone fabricator, anchoring device fabricator, and other interested parties for the safe and economical use of building stone in construction. It offers guide lines for the design and application of building stone using metal gravity anchors and/or lateral anchors to: (a) clad solid concrete or masonry, (b) clad the structural frame of a building, either directly, or to subframes, or to curtain walls which are attached to the building structure. It also includes guide lines for the design and application of paving stones. 2. GEOLOGIC CATEGORIES OF STONES FREQUENTLY USED IN CONSTRUCTION 2.1 Sedimentary stones (sandstone, limestone, dolomite) originally formed mainly in sea water, or lakes, from the remains of animals and plants, also from transportation and deposition of rock products. 2.2 Metamorphic stones (marble, serpentine, onyx, slate, quartzite, gneiss) are produced from sedimentary or igneous rocks by the action of heat and pressure.
    [Show full text]
  • Testing Methods to Determine Long Term Durability of Wisconsin October 2005 Aggregate Resources 6
    Richard E. Weyers and Gregory S. Williamson Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University David W. Mokarem and Daniel S. Lane Virginia Transportation Research Council Philip D. Cady Pennsylvania State University October 2005 WHRP 06-07 NOTICE: This research was funded through the Wisconsin Highway Research Program by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration under Project # (0092-02-03). The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration at the time of publication. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the object of the document. ii 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession 3. Recipient’s Catalog No WHRP 06-07 No 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Testing Methods to Determine Long Term Durability of Wisconsin October 2005 Aggregate Resources 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Authors 8. Performing Organization Report Richard E. Weyers,Gregory S. Williamson,David W. No. Mokarem,Daniel S. Lane and Philip D. Cady 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Building Stones of the United States: NAME ______The NIST Test Wall
    Building Stones of the United States: NAME _______________________________ The NIST Test Wall *NOTE: Start NETSCAPE (or Internet Explorer), select File - Open - Choose File - Startup.htm if you are not working on line or if a problem develops. The “live” connection is: http://stonewall.nist.gov/default.htm A stone test wall was constructed to study the performance of stone subjected to weathering. It contains 2352 individual samples of stone, of which 2032 are domestic stone from 47 states, and 320 are stones from 16 foreign countries. Over 30 distinct types of stones are represented, some of which are not commonly used for building purposes. There are many varieties of the common types used in building. The Wall is located at the NIST site in Gaithersburg, Maryland, at the Southwest end of the campus. The wall faces South, providing a direct exposure to the sunlight. The back face to the North resides all day long in the wall's shadow. The wall was built in 1948 at the NBS site in Washington D.C. The wall was placed in jeopardy by the move of NBS to Gaithersburg, MD in the middle 1960s and the occupancy of the old NBS site by the University of the District of Columbia. The wall was moved intact in May 1977 to its present site at NBS (now the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)) in Gaithersburg, MD. Examine the site by looking through the parts labeled: Introduction, Features of the Wall, Location and Orientation, Documentation, and Miscellaneous Pictures. Once you are familiar with the ideas behind the StoneWall - the most direct way to work is by using the “Search by classification” option.
    [Show full text]
  • Fire Resistance of Walls of Gravel-Aggregate Concrete Masonry Units
    jonal Bureau of Standards C-^fU^ Library, N. W. Bidg. AUG 1 9 1952 Fire Resistance of Walls of Gravel- Aggregate Concrete Masonry Units United States Department of Commerce National Bureau of Standards Building Materials and Structures Report BMS120 BUILDING MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES REPORTS On request, the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Wash- ington 25, D. C., will place your name on a special mailing list to receive notices of new reports in this series as soon as they are issued. There will be no charge for receiving such notices. An alternative method is to deposit with the Superintendent of Documents the sum of $5, with the request that the reports be sent to you as soon as issued, and that the cost thereof be charged against your deposit. This will provide for the mailing of the publications without delay. You will be notified when the amount of your deposit has become exhausted. If 100 copies or more of any report are ordered at one time, a discount of 25 percent is allowed. Send all orders and remittances to the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C. The following publications in this series are available by purchase from the Superintendent of Documents at the prices indicated: BMSl Research on Building Materials and Structures for Use in Low-Cost Housing * BMS2 Methods of Determining the Structural Properties of Low-Cost House Constructions.- lOfi BMS3 Suitability of Fiber Insulating Lath as a Plaster Base 15ji BMS4 Accelerated Aging of Fiber Building Boards 10^ BMS5 Structural Properties of Six Masonry Wall Constructions 15^ BMS6 Survey of Roofing Materials in the Southeastern States 15^ BMS7 Water Permeability of Masonry Walls * BMS8 Methods of Investigation of Surface Treatment for Corrosion Protection of Steel 15^ BMS9 Structural Properties of the Insulated Steel Construction Co.'s "Frameless-Steel" Con- structions for Walls, Partitions, Floors, and Roofs lOjS BMSIO Structural Properties of One of the "Keystone Beam Steel Floor" Constructions Sponsored by the H.
    [Show full text]
  • Exchange, Embedded Procurement, and Hunter-Gatherer Mobility: a Case Study from the North American Great Basin by Khori S. Newla
    Exchange, Embedded Procurement, and Hunter-Gatherer Mobility: A Case Study from the North American Great Basin by Khori S. Newlander A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Anthropology) in The University of Michigan 2012 Doctoral Committee: Professor John D. Speth, Chair Professor Robert E. Whallon Jr. Professor Henry T. Wright Professor Youxue Zhang Professor George T. Jones, Hamilton College To J and our furry family ii Acknowledgments This project could not have been completed without the hard work, support, and guidance of many people. I would especially like to thank my committee: John Speth, Bob Whallon, Henry Wright, Tom Jones, and Youxue Zhang. I am truly grateful for the guidance you have provided along the way. This work is certainly stronger for it. In particular, I owe my dissertation chair, John Speth, special thanks for the long hours he spent talking with me about all facets of this project. Next stop, rock-hounding in Blakeslee Corners! I will forever be indebted to Tom Jones and Charlotte Beck as well. Tom and Charlotte introduced me to archaeology as an undergraduate student at Hamilton College, where our adventures included a field school in Nevada during a “Mormon” cricket invasion. When I turned my gaze back toward the Great Basin in search of a dissertation topic, Tom and Charlotte provided students to work with me in the field, access to all of their collections, and continual support and guidance, even as I pursued ideas with which they may disagree. It is hard for me to imagine a better example of what a student-teacher relationship can be than the one I have enjoyed with Tom and Charlotte.
    [Show full text]
  • Vesicular Basalt Provisioning Practices Among the Prehistoric Hohokam
    Vesicular Basalt Provisioning Practices Among the Prehistoric Hohokam of the Salt-Gila Basin, Southern Arizona by Craig M. Fertelmes A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Approved November 2014 by the Graduate Supervisory Committee: David R. Abbott, Co-Chair Arleyn W. Simon, Co-Chair J. Andrew Darling ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY December 2014 ABSTRACT This study evaluates five different hypotheses potentially accounting for the prehistoric movement of vesicular basalt during the Hohokam occupation of the Salt-Gila Basin (ca. A.D. 700-1450): 1) direct procurement; 2) direct exchange; 3) down-the-line exchange; 4) market exchange; and 5) elite-controlled exchange. The plausibility of each hypothesis is assessed by examining the relative frequency of different vesicular basalt source types at sites as related to the geographic distance from their source; intra-site variance in vesicular basalt source type diversity; inter-site variance in vesicular basalt source type diversity; and temporal specificity and continuity in source preference. The study sample is comprised of 484 vesicular basalt artifacts recovered from nine Hohokam sites: Casa Grande, Gila Crossing, the Hospital Site, La Plaza, Las Colinas, Los Hornos, Lower Santan, Pueblo Grande, and Upper Santan. Geographic provenance data for artifacts are generated by comparing their chemical composition to a geochemical reference database composed of more than 700 vesicular basalt raw material samples from 17 different source areas in the Salt-Gila Basin. Geochemical data for both artifact and raw material samples were collected using a portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometer and a newly developed sampling procedure that provides an efficient, reliable, and nondestructive means of analysis.
    [Show full text]