My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2006-04-12_REVISION - M1983067 (5)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1983067
>
2006-04-12_REVISION - M1983067 (5)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/21/2025 2:14:49 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 2:27:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1983067
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
4/12/2006
Doc Name
Stability Analysis
From
Lafarge West Inc.
To
DMG
Type & Sequence
TR2
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.
/
15
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
Mr. Ken Lambrecht <br />April 4, 2006 <br />Page 3 <br />The setback distance in the table is from the crest of the highwall to the slurry wall centerline. The <br />slurry wall centerline is 30 feet from existing utilities orrights-of--way, so the total setbacks from <br />highwall crest to property lines aze 67 and 46 feet, respectively, for the cases analyzed. <br />Each of the owner's of the existing structures (in this case the utilities in theright-of--way) can be <br />approached to see if a less conservative analysis can be used. However, unless site-specific strength <br />data is obtained indicating smaller setbacks are appropriate, the set back distance from the slurry wall to <br />the steep mine highwall will need to be 37 feet or more, based on the DMG parameters. if the highwall <br />is mined at a 3:1 slope the set back only needs to 16 feet. <br />HIGHWALL TO SLURRY WALL SETBACKENGINEERINGANALYSlS <br />The appropriate distance frorn the slurry wall to the crest of the highwall was analyzed by using the <br />stratigraphy encountered in the borings. The soil strength parameters used in the model were derived <br />from typical, similar sites and engineering judgment. Table 3 highlights the strength parameters of the <br />soils used in the model. <br />Table 3: Assumed Model Parameters <br /> <br />Soli Tjpe Effective <br />Friction Angle <br />' (de rees Effective <br />Cohesion <br />c' (psJ) Moist Unit Weight <br /> <br />Ya (Pcn <br />Overburden 24 50 114 <br />Gravel 35 0 130 <br />Bedrock (Peak S4en 26 700 124 <br />Co acted Cla Liner 24 100 115 <br />Bedrock Full Softened S[ren 26 0 124 <br />analysis involved varying the offset distance from the highwall to the slurry wall and evaluating the <br />~r of safety and failure surface orientation at each offset distance. Shallow surfaces (infinite slope or <br />eling failures")were excluded from the analysis, as they should not impact the slurry wall. <br />evaluated two types of reclaimed slopes. The first type consists of mining a steep highwall (0.5:1) <br />placing overburden soils compacted to 45 percent of the maximum dry density per ASTM D-698 for <br />3:1 reclamation slope. The second type of slope evaluated consists of mining a 3:1 highwall slope <br />leaving the native soils in-place as the final reclamation slope. <br />highwall was modeled with a slope of 0.5: I typical for gravel mines in the South Platte River <br />bedrock was encountered in the exploratory borings in the shallow and intermediate sections. <br />bedrock strength parameters were used for all sections. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.