2010-02-16_REPORT - M1974004 (2)

Home Browse Search

this year's analysis. These poles are summarized in Figure 8 and are presented in further detail in Table 2 below. Table 2: Representative Discontinuity Orientations Dip Direction/Dip Concentration 2009 2010 Final Results Center Results (3,066 Points Total) F-1 (Fol) 1600/35° 171 °/34° F-2 (Fol) 1980/240 * 1980/240 * F-3 (Fol) 2940/360 * 2940/360 * P-1 (Joint) 1720/750 1720/740 P-2 (Joint) 0860/580 0880/610 P-3 (Joint) 2520/630 2560/690 P-4 (Joint) 2820/700 2820/700 P-5 (Joint) 3430/640 3520/660 P-6 (Joint) 0410/560 0280/550 * Derived from previous ears analysis It is noted that the results for the current analysis did not change the pole or the resultant concentration center for any of the delineated joint sets significantly from any of the 2008 or 2009 results. The collected data for this evaluation was complimentary to the existing growing dataset and were consistent with past analyses. We have continued our analysis of the available cluster data to assess the hypothesis that two distinct "structural blocks" exist within the quarry, and two cluster analyses showing the poles based on collection areas have been developed (Figures 9 and 10). The datasets have been broken down based on the location and year that the data were collected with the southern expansion area separated geographically from the main pit area of the quarry (including the middle level) by the approximately east-west trending fault that is mapped between the two areas (Figure 3). Currently the 1997-2002 data continue to be analyzed as a single data set and are included in both the upper and lower analyses, but data collected since 2003 have been separated for the analysis based on this potential boundary. The results show that the data in the main pit have a tighter clustering around the primary discontinuity orientations (Figure 9), but overall similar -12- Lachel & Associates 3 11. 1 ...1.1 1-.1111