My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2024-03-25_REVISION - M1982121
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1982121
>
2024-03-25_REVISION - M1982121
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/1/2024 3:38:18 PM
Creation date
4/1/2024 1:25:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1982121
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
3/25/2024
Doc Name
Interoffice Memo/Review Memo
Type & Sequence
TR6
Email Name
ACY
THM
AME
ZTT
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.
/
3
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
...were modeled to determine the resisting force required to reach a factor of safety of 1.5." The <br /> West section resultant FOS is 1.45 and resultant FOS for the East section for <br /> are 1.4 and 1.41 respectively as provided in Appendix G. In order to ensure the minimum criteria <br /> of the Division's Section 30 is met,please have KUE provide updated mechanical stabilization <br /> recommendations and associated analyses that meets or exceeds the minimum FOS requirements <br /> of 1.5 for static conditions. <br /> KUE:Stability models in Appendix G have been revised to achieve a FOS of 1.5 static and 1.3 <br /> seismic. <br /> Division: During the Division's review of the applied seismic coefficient, it was observed that <br /> the value was not provided within discussion of the Report.Additionally it was unclear as to what <br /> methodology was used in determining the applied seismic coefficient. Please have KUE provide <br /> additional clarification within Section 7 regarding the design seismic coefficient value used along <br /> with the methodology and rational. <br /> KUE:Further discussion of reasoning and how the seismic design coefficient was selected has <br /> been included in section 7. <br /> After reviewing KUE's updated Section 7 of the Report,KUE has provided additional rational regarding <br /> the applied seismic design coefficient. KUE states in the Report that due to the similarities between soil <br /> nail design and rock dowel design,the seismic design methodology from FHWA GEC 7 was utilized <br /> which was developed following AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Both methodologies and <br /> design references are published and widely accepted engineering methodology. Additionally,as noted in <br /> the Division's February 6,2024 memo,the Division was able to corroborate the peak gravitational <br /> acceleration, site adjustment factors and resulting seismic coefficient provided under Appendices D and G <br /> with published information from the applicable USGS Seismic Design Map Web Services. With the <br /> additional provided rational and discussion,the Division has no additional comments and this item has <br /> been satisfied. <br /> Division's Comments and/or Questions <br /> Based on the updated and provided Report conducted by KUE for the Mine,all remaining adequacy items <br /> from the Division's February 6,2024 memo have been satisfied and I have no further comments. <br /> This concludes my review of the provided geotechnical report, "Rock Failure Analysis and Stability", <br /> conducted by Kilduff Underground Engineering, Inc. on behalf of RMR Aggregates, Inc. regarding the <br /> rock failure event that occurred on January 18,2023 at the Mid Continent Limestone Quarry(Mine). If <br /> you have any questions feel free to contact me. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Zach Trujillo <br /> Environmental Protection Specialist <br /> (303) 866-3567 ext. 8164 <br /> Zach.Trujillo@state.co.us <br /> Mid Continent Limestone Quarry Geotechnical Review Memo March 25,2024 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.