My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE22932
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE22932
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:32:28 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:17:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
1/1/1998
Doc Name
EVALUATION OF BEAR 3 MINE LANDSLIDE
Violation No.
CV1997022
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.
/
24
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
Evaluation of Bear No. 3 Mine Landslide <br />l Geotechnical Analyses <br />l This section compares the results of previous stability analyses conducted on a nearby hillside <br />11 with the field observations made at the subject landslide. The theoretical calculations confirm <br />the field observations that the current landslide is a shallow translational failure with a failure <br />surface in the upper and middle portions, which is located near the contact of the colluvial <br />cverburden and the underlying bedrock surface. <br />The stability of the slopes in the vicinity of portals and access roads for the Bear No. 3 Mine site <br />just east of the subject landslide was the focus of an investigation conducted for Beaz Coal <br />Company by Rocky Mountain Geotechnical submitted on April 16, ] 982. The results of this <br />report which included the collection of field data at five test hole locations and laboratory testing <br />to develop shear strengths are summarized in Figure 9, Sensitivity Analysis. <br />1 The subsurface conditions encountered generally consist of a varying thickness of colluvial soil <br />overlying interbedded sandstone, siltstone, and shale bedrock. The vertical thicknesses of <br />colluvium utilized in the stability analysis typically was on the order of 30 feet. However; <br />thicknesses of the colluvial layer vazied, being thinner at higher elevations and thicker at the base ~~ n,~'~ <br />of the slope. No free water was observed in any of the colluvium materials on site at the time of e .,VX~ ' <br />drilling. <br />Rocky Mountain Geotechnical analyzed the stability of five proposed topographic cross sections <br />(A through E) using peak and residual shear strengths in the colluvium and two different <br />groundwater conditions. The location of Sections A and D, which represent the range of slope <br />angles evaluated, are shown on Figure 8. The residual shear strength was a combination of a <br />friction angle of 16° and a cohesion of 210 pounds per square foot. Peak sheaz strengths were <br />based on a friction angle of 23° and a cohesion of 360 pounds per square foot. Assumed <br />groundwater conditions included no seepage and a 4 foot seepage zone at the bedrock/colluvial <br />interface. Bedrock was assumed to have a friction angle of 33° and a cohesion of 4000 pounds <br />per square foot. <br />831-032.411 Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Page 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.