Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />i' <br />1 <br />TABLE 5 <br />SRMR VS. SHEAR STRENGTH <br />Rating Strength Parameters --~ <br />Rock Mass Class SRMR Island Copper Mfne <br />C'(psi) ~' Getchell Mlne <br />C' (psi) ~' <br />IVa 35-00 <br />30-35 12.5 <br />10.5 40 <br />36 <br />IVb 250 <br />20-25 10.0 <br />10.0 34 <br />30 7.0 <br />7.0 30 <br />26 <br />Va 15-20 9.0 27.5 7,0 24 <br />Vb 5-15 7.5 24 2.0 21 <br />A similar approach was employed at the San Luis Project. A rock mass classrficatlon as described <br />' in Figure t 3 was employed for the weak rock mass materials. These values may then be related to <br /> the strengths shown in Table 4. The sections in Figure 5 show the variation of uhe SRMR as <br /> recorded from the oriented core drilling program. <br />' <br /> The laboratory shear strengths in Table 4 reflect a weak rock mass having an SRMR of 10-15. <br />~ ~' Shear testing of SRMR = t 0 material resulted in the samples crumbling under normal laboratory test <br />loads. These samples were subsequently remoulded and sheared for purposes of determining the <br /> lower bound strength. <br />I' 7 <br />0 STABILITY ANALYSIS <br /> . <br />' Slope instability within the Blotite Gneiss would be joint controlled whereas wRhln the weaker rock <br />masses such as the Santa Fe, Pink Gneiss and Green Clay the potential for instability would be <br />rotational or soil-like. Figure 14 Illustrates typical failure modes that govern the stabbility of mine <br />' slopes. <br />' The stability analysis for the West and East Pit will be segmented into 'joint controlled' and 'rock <br />mass controlled' Instability Tar purposes of analysis and design. <br />' 7.1 Joint Controlled <br />Table 1 and Figures 6 and 7 Identifies the joint sets within the structural domains. The joints that <br />' combine to form wedges and/or planar failures were delineated and analyzed for the potential of <br />instability. A friction angle of 35 degrees and a cohesion of 0 psi was employed, Setotion 6.2. A <br />' factor of safety of 1.2 for dewatered conditions was considered as stable. The methods of analysis <br /> <br /> <br />