My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2019-11-12_REVISION - M2004044 (13)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M2004044
>
2019-11-12_REVISION - M2004044 (13)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/6/2025 6:22:11 AM
Creation date
11/12/2019 1:01:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2004044
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
11/12/2019
Doc Name
Adequacy Review Response #3
From
Aggregate Industries
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
AM1
Email Name
JLE
ERR
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.
/
59
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
N <br /> TETRA TECH Updated Tucson South Proposed Gravel Mine Slope Stability Analysis <br /> November 8 2019 <br /> Table 1:Material parameters used in the slope stability models6. <br /> Material Parameters <br /> Material Moist Saturated Effective Effective <br /> Unit Unit Cohesion Friction <br /> Weight Weight c' Angle 4)' <br /> (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (degrees) <br /> Overburden 114 126 50 28 <br /> Sand & Gravel 130 137 0 35 <br /> Weathered Claystone Bedrock 124 134 0 14 <br /> (residual strength) <br /> Claystone Bedrock (peak strength) 124 134 100 28 <br /> Mud Lens 114 126 50 28 <br /> Slurry Wall 110 122 0 0 <br /> Reclamation Slope Fill 119 126 25 26 <br /> pcf=pounds per cubic foot;psf=pounds per square foot <br /> A seismic analysis was also performed for each of the sections described above as required by the DRMS. The <br /> seismic analysis accounts for the effects of horizontal acceleration experienced during an earthquake. The <br /> horizontal acceleration used was 0.067 g. The value was obtained from a U.S. Seismic Design map of the areas. <br /> The U.S. Seismic Design Maps program considers the soil classification and location of the site. For the Tucson <br /> South site, Site Class D—Stiff Soil was used. <br /> Other applicable DRMS requirements that were used are as follows: <br /> • The minimum factor of safety for the static analysis is 1.5. <br /> • The minimum factor of safety for the seismic analysis is 1.3. <br /> The scenarios were modeled with entry/exit geometry for currently proposed setbacks. The setbacks were <br /> adjusted as needed to reach the minimum required factor of safety in each case. <br /> 4.3 MODEL RESULTS <br /> The model results are given in Table 2. Detailed model results and a comparison with previous slope stability <br /> modeling is included in Appendix A. The setbacks listed are the minimum setbacks required. Resulting sections <br /> from the model are presented in Figures. It should be noted that the setback requirement for model J is <br /> dependent on the reduced phreatic surface in the soils behind the mine cut, care should be given to the <br /> dewatering process chosen in the South Pit. <br /> 9 U.S. Geological Survey. (2017, July 27). U.S. Seismic Design Maps. U.S. Geological Survey. <br /> TETRA TECH <br /> r_ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.