My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE47424
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
500000
>
PERMFILE47424
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:49:27 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 1:09:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1994082
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
10/6/2004
Doc Name
Geotechnical Design & Operational Considerations for Highwall Mining, IIW & Yoast Areas
Section_Exhibit Name
Tab 12 Attachment 12-3 Part 2
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.
/
111
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
• testing of the Sage Creek coal were available, and no data for this seam were present in <br />the database. Generalized lithology log holes 3319C and 3320C are shown in Figures 22 <br />and 23. <br />As part of the inspection and sample selection process, Rock Quality Designations <br />(RQD's) were calculated. RQD was determined on a 4-inch convention; RQD values aze <br />given on Figures 22 and 23 preceding the unit names. <br />The primary rock type represented in the tested boreholes consists of a brown-to- <br />gray shale (69%). In the core, the shale is relatively intact, with an average RQD of 49. <br />The next most common rock type in the core is sandstone (27%), with an average-RQD <br />of 55. The balance of the column from the tested holes consisted of coal, claystone, and <br />limestone. RQD's of the coal were quite low, averaging 17. This may be due to the fact <br />the core was not fresh and had lost some of its inherent moisture. This probably also <br />explains the low coal compressive strengths from this core compared with coal tests from <br />the Peabody database. <br />During the course of NSA's site visit, general observations of highwall and pit <br />floor conditions were made. At the time, mining had not extended to the Sage Creek or <br />Wolf Creek in the active pits, and only the Wadge Seam was accessible. <br />. The Seneca IIW highwall is generally stable (Figures 24 and 25), with little or no <br />groundwater encountered. The shale, sandstone, and overlying coal seams that make up <br />the highwall appeaz to be very competent, with any small instabilities related to structure <br />rather than rock weakness. <br />The Yoas[ highwall consists of similarly competent material (Figure 26). An old <br />exposure of the highwall (Figure 27) shows more cleazly the structure in the Yoast azea, ~ <br />and suggests that structure dominates here more than in Seneca 11W. ` <br />2.3 Physical Property Test Results <br />After inspection of the core provided, NSA recommended a suite of uniaxial <br />compressive strength tests to characterize the roof, floor, and seam strata. This was done <br />to provide data for analytical, empirical, and numerical modeling analyses, and to provide <br />a basis of comparison between samples from the study azeas and those from the Peabody <br />database. For selected uniaxial tests, axial strain was also measured so that Young's <br />modulus could be determined. Slake durability tests were also performed to assess the <br />trafficability of the floor materials. In total, 10 uniaxial compressive strength tests with <br />Young's modulus, 11 uniaxial compressive strength tests, and 3 slake durability tests <br />were performed by Advanced Terra Testing (ATT) of Lakewood, CO. ATT's report has <br />been forwarded to Seneca separately. Table 2 summarizes the physical property database <br />used for the analyses described in this report. The abbreviations and strata location <br />classifications given are defined as follows: <br />Seneca Coal Company 4 NSA Engineering, Inc. <br />Highwall Mine Design Report lone 2003 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.