Laserfiche WebLink
K jL U UFF � RM R Aggregates, Inc. <br /> u N D E R G R O U N i Rock Failure Analyses and Stabilization Report <br /> E N GI N E ER I N G. IN C Mid Continent Limestone Quarry <br /> Colorado DRMS7 are scaled based on the robustness of input parameters and analyses weighted by <br /> the consequence of failure. The Colorado DRMS recommended FOS values, captured again in the <br /> 2018 Policies of the Mined Land Reclamation Board report', are reproduced in Table 4 below. <br /> Table 4. Slope Stability Design Standard <br /> Minimum Factor of Safety <br /> Consequence of Failure/ Generalized,Assumed, Strength Measurements <br /> Analyses or Single Test Strength Resulting from Multiple <br /> Measurements Tests <br /> Non-Critical Structures- <br /> Static 1.3 1.25 <br /> Non-Critical Structures— <br /> Pseudostatic 1.15 1.1 <br /> Critical Structures - Static 1.5 1.3 <br /> Critical Structures— 1.3 1.15 <br /> Pseudostatic <br /> For the RMR Aggregate site, the failure path of the slope could impact quarry facilities on the bench, <br /> and potentially impact life safety,therefore the structures were considered Critical. Static analyses <br /> were performed, together classified in Table 4 as "Critical structures—static". The slope stability <br /> analyses were performed using some historic data provided by the client, but the model input <br /> parameters were largely informed by empirical values that were confirmed through our backanalysis, <br /> classified as "Generalized, assumed, or single test strength measurements" in Table 4.Therefore, a <br /> FOS of 1.5 was considered as the minimum acceptable FOS for static analyses on the project. Seismic <br /> analyses was also performed, classified in Table 4 as "Critical structures— Pseudostatic", where MLRB <br /> dictates the minimum acceptable FOS of 1.3 for pseudostatic analyses on the project. <br /> As a cross check, other mine-industry references commonly used for recommendation of an <br /> acceptable minimum value for FOS include a table of minimum FOS for slope scale vs. consequence of <br /> failure from the Acceptance Criteria chapter in the Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design manual, <br /> reproduced here as Table 5. <br /> Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety,2016, Design Standard of Care for Slope Stability/Geotechnical <br /> Analyses. <br /> 8 Colorado Department of Reclamation, Mining and Safety,2018,Policies of the Mined Land Reclamation Board,dated <br /> May 16,2018, 14pp; https:Hdrms.colorado.gov/rules-and-regulations <br /> Page 11 <br /> 535 16t'STREET,SUITE 620 1 DENVER,Co 80202 1 (303)732-3692 1 WWW.KILDUFFUNDERGROUND.COM <br />