Laserfiche WebLink
• Mr. Jeffrey Dubbert, Blue Mountain Energy Inc., Deserado Mine <br />Slope Stability Calculations Coal Refuse Area # 2, #3 & #4, Deserado Mine, Colorado <br />lone 23, 2004 Page 2 <br />Following is a summary of the results of these sheaz strength analysis. <br />Coal Refuse Testing -Lincoln DeVore and Grand Junction Lincoln DeVore <br />• <br />Job # Date of Phi Tag Cohesion Sample Moisture Type <br /> report Angle Phi psf Density <br /> P~ <br />56722 8-I-85 29.0 0.554 576 85.2 18.9% Remolded - uiaxial, <br /> multistage 5ne grained <br />65301 4-30-87 36.5 0.739 58 80.7 26.4% Remolded -direct sheaz <br />65328 6-8-87 37.0 0.755 94 80.0 Remolded -direct shear <br />65328 6-8-87 37.5 0.767 263 80.0 Remolded - direct sheaz <br />86432 1-5-98 31.5 0.614 139 79.6 Remolded -multistage, <br /> direct sheaz <br />86439 1-5-98 29.1 .556 457 78.2 Remolded - w/filter cake, <br /> direct shear, multistage <br />90875 5-8-04 3939 0.835 469 71.9 33.2% Remolded -multistage, <br /> peak wmposite direct sheaz, cycled <br /> composite <br />Native Cla Formation from Chen & Assoc., ort # 21,358, 12-80 <br />#21,358 1980 26.0 0.404 0 110.0/115 Triaxial sheaz - 1.9." dia. <br />moist Cal. Liner <br />Grand Junction Lincoln DeVore placed two auger borings on the Coal Refuse Area #2, #3 and #4"on 4-7- <br />04 and 4-9-04. The borings were drilled using a C.M.E. model drill, with 3.75" id Hollow Stem Auger. <br />The holes were drilled to depths of 40 to 49 feet deep. The drill encountered effective auger refusal in both <br />borings, due to the tight, well compacted coal refuse. <br />The coal refuse was sampled using a 2 %z " id/1.875" id California Split Spoon Sampler, with liners. The <br />sampler was driven with a C.M.E. Automatic Hammer. The samples are probably compacted to.a small <br />degree, due to the `Blum' Drive Shce. The coal refuse was found to be fairly consistem, of medium high <br />density and dry to slightly damp. No free water or wet zones were observed. <br />Water wnditions within the coal refuse pile were assumed to be just below saturation but, a free water <br />surface which would affect the entire coal pile was not allowed. The assumptions for this currentslope <br />stability study aze essemially those utilized for previously calculations performed by Lincoln DeVore and <br />Grand Junction Lincoln DeVore. Following are the minimum Factors of Safety for the refuse coal for the <br />modified pile, to include, the factors of safety utilizing a horizontal earth quake loading ccefficiem of 0.050 <br />• and a vertical earth quake loading coefficiem of 0.0. <br />