My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-10-22_REVISION - M2008017 (4)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M2008017
>
2010-10-22_REVISION - M2008017 (4)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/16/2021 5:48:36 PM
Creation date
10/25/2010 9:07:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2008017
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
10/22/2010
Doc Name
TR-01 Adequacy Review Comment Responses
From
J&T Consulting, Inc.
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR1
Email Name
MAC
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.
/
136
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
Case 3a - North Property Line (NORTH 3a). The mining operation is adjacent <br />to a private property and some minor electric utilities for a portion of the north <br />side of the site. The mining depth was assumed to be 85 feet in this area based <br />on bore log information in the geotechnical reports. The proposed interim setback <br />for mining is 120 feet from the final mining limit (247 feet from the property line). <br />Case 4a - Existing Gas Well (WELL 4a). An existing gas well is located in the <br />center of the proposed pit. The mining depth was assumed to be 85 feet in the <br />area based on bore log information in the geotechnical reports. The proposed <br />interim minimum setback for mining is 110 feet from the final mining limit (260 <br />feet from the gas well). <br />The cross-sections located in Appendix B show the estimated phreatic surface <br />associated with each case as well as the geometry used in the interim mining condition. <br />METHODOLOGY <br />The mining embankment configuration shown in the computer analysis represents the <br />estimated conditions for this site. If mining conditions differ from the estimated <br />conditions, the slope stability will need to be re-evaluated on a case by case basis. The <br />Bishop Method was used in the computer analysis for determining safety factors. The <br />procedure searches for circular shear failures and automatically searches for the lowest <br />safety factor. 2,000 separate failure surfaces were analyzed for each case. The required <br />minimum safety factors are based on the current standards used by the Colorado State <br />Engineer's Office (SEO) in evaluating embankment dams, and industry accepted <br />standards for the evaluation of temporary structures during construction. <br />SLOPE STABILITY RESULTS <br />The SEO requires minimum safety factors of 1.25 for static condition analyses and 1.0 <br />for pseudo-static (earthquake loading) condition analyses for Class I (high hazard) <br />embankment dams. This design criteria was used to establish the desired minimum <br />safety factors for this project and should be considered as highly conservative for <br />evaluating alluvial mining slopes. The calculated factors of safety are within the design <br />criteria specified for this project and can be considered indicators of the mining slope <br />performance under the various conditions. The results of the static condition and <br />pseudo-static condition slope stability analyses are presented on the following page in <br />Tables 2 through 5. <br />Broken Arrow Investments, LLC - Derr Pit - M-2008-17 <br />J&T Consulting, Inc. Technical Revision No. 1- Slope Stability Analysis e 3
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.