My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE56512
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
600000
>
PERMFILE56512
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:59:04 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 5:06:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981038
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Section_Exhibit Name
Volume 6 PHASE II Stability Analysis - Phase II Geotechnical Studies
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.
/
45
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
l J <br />4.2.3 Diversion Channel Cut <br />Several minor failures have occurred within the di- <br />version channel cut portion that has been excavated in soils. <br />These failures indicate that the safety factors of the exist- <br />ing slope are very close to unity. For this reason, some <br />remedial measures will have to be undertaken in the future. <br />• <br />In our opinion, remedial measures could be undertaken <br />either in the near future, or, as in the case of the crush- <br />ing and screening level fill, after a period of careful <br />monitoring that would provide more reliable data on the geo- <br />technical and ground water conditions. Only long-term moni- <br />toring can indicate whether only shallow, surficial failures <br />(as they were indicated by the analyses and as they have ~~ <br />been observed in the field) are the most probable type of fail- <br />ure or whether a deep-seated failure could develop in the , <br />area. monitoring would also indicate whether ground water <br />may occur within the slope. i <br />' If the mine management decides to proceed with re- <br />i' <br />medial measures in the near future, we consider two alter- <br />I natives to be available to effectively increase the safety <br />factor of the slope. One alternative would be to reduce the <br />slope angle while maintaining a uniform gradient. A final <br />cut slope of 1.0(v) 1.5(h) would, according to our analyses <br />~~ presented in Appendix C, have a safety factor in excess of <br />~I 1.3 provided that the slope is fully drained. This may be <br />approved for final reclamation if adequate control over <br />~, erosion is provided. <br />A second alternative would be to increase the safety <br />Factor of the overall slope by constructing a toe buttress. <br />Safety factors which ~~ou1d be achieved by typical buttresses <br />• - 2f~ - <br />GFO-MYDVO CONSUnING. INC. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.