My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-01-12_REVISION - M1985112 (7)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1985112
>
2016-01-12_REVISION - M1985112 (7)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 2:33:18 PM
Creation date
1/14/2016 11:45:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1985112
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
1/12/2016
Doc Name
3rd Adequacy Letter Response AM01
From
Loloff Construction, Inc.
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
AM1
Email Name
PSH
WHE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
108
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
geotechnical report. The proposed mining setback was set 50 feet from the <br /> ROW. <br /> Case West — South Property Line (WEST). The mining operation is adjacent to <br /> private property with several permanent structures near west property line of the <br /> site. The mining depth was assumed to be 52.5 feet in this area based on bore <br /> log information in the geotechnical reports. The proposed mining setback was set <br /> 50 feet from the property line <br /> The cross-sections located in Appendix B show the estimated phreatic surface <br /> associated with each case as well as the geometry used in the mining. <br /> METHODOLOGY <br /> The mining embankment configuration shown in the computer analysis represents the <br /> estimated conditions for this site. If mining conditions differ from the estimated <br /> conditions, the slope stability will need to be re-evaluated on a case by case basis. The <br /> Bishop Method was used in the computer analysis for determining safety factors. The <br /> procedure searches for circular shear failures and automatically searches for the lowest <br /> safety factor. 2,000 separate failure surfaces were analyzed for each case. The required <br /> minimum safety factors are based on the current standards used by the Colorado State <br /> Engineer's Office (SEO) in evaluating embankment dams, and industry accepted <br /> standards for the evaluation of temporary structures during construction. <br /> SLOPE STABILITY RESULTS <br /> The SEO requires minimum safety factors of 1.3 for static condition analyses and 1.0 for <br /> pseudo-static (earthquake loading) condition analyses for Class I (high hazard) <br /> embankment dams. This design criteria was used to establish the desired minimum <br /> safety factors for this project and should be considered as highly conservative for <br /> evaluating alluvial mining slopes. The calculated factors of safety are within the design <br /> criteria specified for this project and can be considered indicators of the mining slope <br /> performance under the various conditions. The slopes were analyzed using full and <br /> empty reservoir conditions. The results of the static condition and pseudo-static <br /> condition slope stability analyses in Table 2 and Table 3. <br /> 111 Loloff Construction, Inc.-Loloff Pit <br /> J&T Consulting, Inc. Slope Stability AFage'3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.