estabilidad de taludes 3232

© All Rights Reserved

4 visualizações

estabilidad de taludes 3232

© All Rights Reserved

- Introduction to Environmental Geology 5th Ed. - E. Keller (Pearson, 2011)
- Analysis of Blocky Rock Slopes With the Shear Strength Reduction Method
- DLL on Fault and Earthquake.docx
- @_Breakwater Foundation Stability
- LandslideNotes.pdf
- SSAP Software for Advanced LEM Analysis
- Bray 24 May 2002 Arias Intensity Attenuation
- +Editorial Summary
- Geot58-645-Experimental Pile Subjected to a Moving Slope
- GGU-STABILITY MAN
- Chapter 1 Definition and Scope of Protective Measures for Roads_2
- Quiz 6
- ur ru presentation corrected
- gregory cgs news newcastle earthquake
- IOT Seminar_Yuichiro Tanioka
- Rubric KPMT 2016 (Dalam Bahasa Inggeris)
- Carter Paper
- AubenyPresSlides-10Jun09
- Sinteza articole
- Three Dimensional Slope Stability Analysis Using Laser Scanning and Numerical Simulation

Você está na página 1de 14

Ricardo Sepulveda

Mr. Manuel Rapiman

Chief Geotechnical Engineering, Minera Escondida Ltd.

BHP Billiton Base Metals, Chile

Mr. Ricardo Sepulveda

Geotechnical Consultant A. Karzulovic & Assoc. Ltd., Chile

ABSTRACT

The feasibility study of Escondida Norte (ENorte), recommended a slope angle design

for the Final Pit. But, according to the experience obtained with the slope adjacent to

the West wall of ENorte, in which Compaia Minera Zaldvar (CMZ) gained in its

phase 4, a slope of similar geotechnical characteristics will be exposed in the West Wall

of Phase 1 (Premine) and of the Final Pit, with an interramp angle 53 and with very

good stability results.

In this regard, Minera Escondida Ltd. (MEL) performed a study of the slope angles for

the phases mentioned and according to this delivered the results of this evaluation, the

recommendations and/or the necessary conclusions in the design to ensure that the

slopes are stable enough and may enable safe operational management of them.

INTRODUCTION

The objective of the study developed, is to perform a revision and evaluation of the

slope angles for Phase 1 (Premine) and the West Wall of the Final Pit of ENorte pit.

The work described in this paper is directed towards the stability analyses of slopes,

evaluating the degree of stability for potential slides on failure surfaces. The details of

the stability analyses developed by limit equilibrium methods are included.

The present work is supported by the following data and report sources:

Plane and vertical sections design of ENorte for Phase 1 and Final Pit.

(a)

Geotechnical report used in the study performed for CMZ, related to the interaction between Phase 4 and the Final Pit of ENorte of MEL.

(b)

(c)

the geotechnical units present in the pit and the groundwater level in the

ENorte sector.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

The good results obtained from the analyses, according to the point of view of the stability of slopes during the feasibility study developed by MEL for Project ENorte, and

Page 265

International Symposium on Stability of Rock Slopes

Ricardo Sepulveda

the experience during the geotechnical analyses of Phase 4 of CMZ have enabled to

consider a study of the slope angles in some stages of the design ENorte, mainly towards the West sector of the pit.

Figure 1 shows the sectors design for

the Final Pit, considered in the stage of

feasibility study, with the respective

interramp angles recommended.

N-115000

SECTOR I

43

43

43

N-114500

and correspond to A, B, C, K and L.

SECTOR G

43

SECTOR A

48

SECTOR B

N-114000

whose stability is to be evaluated, with

their respective evaluation sections are:

Phase 1 or Premine, which was not

evaluated during the feasibility study,

and the Final Pit for the West side

(sector adjacent to Phase 4 of CMZ) as

described in Table 1.

48

SECTOR F

45

SECTOR K SECTOR L

48

47

N-113500

SECTOR C

48

SECTOR E

44

SECTOR D

N-113000

E-20000

E-19500

E-19000

E-18500

E-18000

E-17500

47

interramp angles recommended in the stage of the

feasibility study ENorte, with the sectors of design.

are shown in Figure 2, and Figure 3.

P01P01-N1

SECTOR H

SECTOR J

P15P15-N1

P15P15-PF

P01P01-PF

N-115000

N

N-114500

P16P16-N1

P16P16-PF

N-114000

P03P03-N1

N-113500

P03P03-PF

N-113000

P04P04-N1

ENorte, with the sections of Design evaluated.

P17P17-PF

E-19000

E-18500

E-18000

E-17500

P04P04-PF

P17P17-N1

ENorte, with the sections of Design evaluated.

Page 266

International Symposium on Stability of Rock Slopes

Ricardo Sepulveda

Table 1

STAGES OF DESIGN CONSIDERED IN THIS STUDY

Maximum Slope Height

(m)

Stage

Vertical Section(s)

Phase1

364

Final Pit

505

(a)

(b)

(c)

Hydrogeological report.

(d)

The geotechnical parameters of the rock mass and structures present in the sections of analyses.

(e)

For the angle of the face of the benches the same criteria in the feasibility study

of project ENorte is used. This is supported by the report of Minera Escondida

Limited (March 2003): Feasibility Study Escondida Norte.

The designs suggested here are valid, considering all the previous suggestions described.

The evaluation and/or optimization were performed using the limit equilibrium analysis

method for the sections previously determined for the pit in design for Phase 1 and Final

Pit.

In every one of the cases described, 6 geotechnical sections design were analyzed. The

sections had priority over the side adjacent to the pit of Phase 4 of CMZ, since it is over

that side where the final wall of the pit ENorte was first determined. It operationally

interacts with pit CMZ.

For the stability analyses the limit equilibrium methods (Program SLIDE, ROCSCIENCE (2003), Geomechanics Software & Research) were used, and, aiming to determine the sliding safety factor, FS, the option to analyze by the General Limit Equilibrium method (GLE) was used. The Probability of Failure, PF was evaluated according to

recent suggestions from Duncan (2000).

GEOLOGY & GEOTECHNICS

Regarding the points described in General Considerations, the geological and geotechnical reports are the same ones used during the feasibility study of Project ENorte,

including the following aspects:

Page 267

International Symposium on Stability of Rock Slopes

Ricardo Sepulveda

In Figure 4 an example of the geometries with the geological contacts and the phreatic level of the

water are shown. The previously

mentioned report for each of the

sections evaluated in this case for

Phase 1 and West Wall of the Pit

can be appreciated.

FASE I

SECCIN P1

ZO

LL

FA

RIOL(QSA)-1

lithologies corresponding to Phase 1

and Final Pit are provided. There, it

can be appreciated that the predominant rocks towards the West

side, next to Phase 4 of CMZ, are

rhyolites. According to the wall

exposed by CMZ operation they

show good geotechnical conditions.

GRD(QSA)-2

RIOL(QSA)-1

NIVEL FRETICO

GRD(QSA)-8

C(BIO)-5

ENorte, which show the geotechnical units with their

respective contacts, a failure zone and the phreatic level.

P_15

Sector I

P_1

Sector J

Sector A

Sector H

Sector A

P_16

Sector F

Sector B

Sector J

Sector B

Sector G

P_4

Sector F

Sector L

Sector K

P_3

Sector L

Sector C

Sector K

Sector C

Sector E

Sector E

Granodiorita

Volcnico

P_17

Grabas

Granodiorita

Volcnico

Brecha

Granodiorita Complex.

Riolita

Grabas

Sector D

Brecha

Granodiorita Complex.

Riolita

present in the pit. It can be appreciated that at the

east side, next to Phase 4 of CMZ, the predominant rock is rhylolite.

Figure 6: Plan for the Final Pit with the lithologies present in the pit.

Page 268

International Symposium on Stability of Rock Slopes

Ricardo Sepulveda

Table 2 provides the geotechnical parameters used in each of the evaluation sections.

They are the same for both stages of the design.

Table 2: GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF SECTIONS ESCONDIDA PIT NORTH

(Sections for Phase 1 and West Wall for the Final Pit)

SECTION

LITHOLOGY

ALTERATION

RMR

UCS

(KN/m )

(Kpa)

()

P1

RIOLITA

QSA

62,01

109,01

24,8

545

45

P1

GRANODIORITA

SCC

45,47

41,88

25

546

39

P1

GRANODIORITA

KBIO

54,78

58,13

25

689

47

P1

VOLCNICO

BIO

58,21

55,76

25

671

45

P1

GRANODIORITA

QSA

50,38

31,98

25

552

39

P3

GRANODIORITA

KBIO

52,4

38,5

25

260

29

P3

RIOLITA

QSA

66,1

114,3

24,8

460

41

P3

GRANODIORITA

QSA

72,4

102,6

24,7

420

39

P3

VOLCNICO

QSA

54,7

46,1

25

593

41

P3

VOLCNICO

KBIO

52,6

37,1

25

539

38

P4

GRANODIORITA

KBIO

47,03

31,99

25

260

29

P4

GRANODIORITA

QSA

53,15

31,00

25

410

40

P4

RIOLITA

QSA

59,94

54,00

25

684

45

P4

VOLCNICO

QSA

55,96

31,00

25

545

38

P4

VOLCNICO

SCC

45,13

25,63

25

435

30

P15

VOLCNICO

QSA

54,9

20,0

25

479

33

P15

VOLCNICO

KBIO

58,2

20,0

25

505

35

P15

GRANODIORITA

KBIO

54,8

27,0

25

567

40

P15

GRANODIORITA

SCC

38,4

25,0

25

410

40

P15

GRANODIORITA

QSA

49,7

27,0

25

390

39

P15

RIOLITA

QSA

66,2

75,0

24,8

550

45

P15

RIOLITA

PROP

55,6

75,0

25

689

45

P15

RIOLITA

SCC

55,6

75,0

25

689

45

P15

GRANODIORITA

PROP

50,0

27,0

25

526

38

P16

VOLCNICO

KBIO

62,1

31,0

25

610

42

P16

GRANODIORITA

KBIO

49,8

45,9

25

597

43

P16

GRANODIORITA

SCC

51,0

49,3

25

619

44

P16

GRANODIORITA

QSA

61,8

53,0

25

768

50

P16

RIOLITA

QSA

54,2

75,0

25

669

45

P16

BRECHA

QSA

57,8

54,0

25

670

45

P16

RIOLITA

QSA

59,6

64,0

25

718

46

P17

GRANODIORITA

KBIO

47,0

32,0

25

524

37

P17

GRANODIORITA

SCC

47,0

36,0

25

539

39

P17

BRECHA

QSA

64,3

54,0

25

775

49

P17

VOLCNICO

KBIO

50,0

31,0

25

493

35

P17

GRANODIORITA

QSA

51,4

36,0

25

577

41

P17

RIOLITA

QSA

49,8

39,5

25

517

36

Page 269

International Symposium on Stability of Rock Slopes

Ricardo Sepulveda

Karzulovic et al. (1989) and Araya (1990) evaluated the seismicity and the seismic risk

of the II Region, considering the geotectonics, the seismic history, the frequency of occurrence of seismicity and the attenuation of seismic intensity with distance from the

seismic focus. This characterization was updated, adding the earthquake of Antofagasta,

July 30, 1995, whose Richter magnitude was 7.8 and focal depth 36 km. The seismicity

and the seismicity risk where the Minera Escondida pit is located may be described as

follows:

Gutenberg and Richter:

LogN = a bM o

Where N is the number of seismic events per year with a Richter magnitude equal or

greater than Mo, and the constants a and b represent the geoseismic characterization

of the region. In the area of the coast of the II Region a is equal to 4.35 and b is equal

to 0.86, while in the area close to the mountains a is equal to 6.57 and b is equal to

1.20; with probable maximum magnitudes of 8.1 and 7.5, respectively. Using these

scales it is possible to generate a probability density function of the magnitude of the

seismicity that takes place in each of these areas.

o To estimate the attenuation of the seismic intensity, defined in terms of the maximum

horizontal acceleration at surface, it is possible to use the relation:

a MAX

2.346 e 0.71M

(R + 60)1.6

Where aMAX is the maximum horizontal acceleration at surface (in g units), M is the

Richter magnitude of the seismic event considered and R is the hypocentral distance

in kilometers.

o It is possible to associate the length of failure to the magnitude of the seismic event

using the following empirical relation.

LR = e

(1.013 M

3.062 ) )

Where LR is the average length of the failure zone, in kilometers, and M is the Richter magnitude of the seismic event.

o It is possible to use the Poisson model to determine the return period associated with

the different seismic intensities.

o According to this, the earthquake and seismic risk of the II Region were evaluated,

concluding that in order to evaluate the stability of the mining residue deposits, the

possible occurrence of two types of seismic events should be considered.

OPERATIONAL EARTHQUAKE: corresponding to a moderate seismic magnitude,

but with a relatively high possibility that it may occur during the operational life of the

mining residue deposits.

Page 270

International Symposium on Stability of Rock Slopes

Ricardo Sepulveda

event with earthquake characteristics, but with a low possibility that it may occur during

the operational life of the mining deposits.

The operational earthquake and the maximum probable earthquake that could affect the

mining residue deposits in the II Region show the following characteristics:

OPERATIONAL EARTHQUAKE:

Richter Magnitude:

Probable epicenter:

Focal Depth:

Probable maximum duration:

Maximum horizontal acceleration at surface:

Probability of occurrence in 50 years :

7.5 to 7.8

Calama / Coquimbo / Antofagasta

Approximately 100 km

65 seconds

0.20 g

Approximately 50%

Richter Magnitude:

Probable epicenters:

Focal depth :

Probable maximum duration:

Maximum horizontal acceleration at surface :

Probability of occurrence in 50 years:

8.0 to 8.5

Calama / Coquimbo / Antofagasta

Approximately 135 km

200 seconds

0.47 g

Approximately 10%

According to this and considering the existing experience regarding the pseudo statistics

analyses of slopes in seismic condition, to evaluate the stability of slopes of ENorte Pit:

OPERATIONAL EARTHQUAKE

: kH = 0.05 g

It is advisable to note that the magnitude of the seismic coefficient is NOT similar to the

maximum horizontal acceleration at surface, especially in the cases of the slopes of interest described here, due to the simplification introduced by the pseudo static analysis.

Nevetheless, it must be pointed out that the probable seismic risk will not be the main

factor in the geotechnical design of slopes of ENorte Pit.

STABILITY ANALYSIS

In order to analyze the stages of the designs of ENorte the following steps were taken:

Six vertical sections of the design of each one of the stages were defined as shown in

Figure 2 and Figure 3. Each section was analyzed by the limit equilibrium method

using GLE and program SLIDE.

It was assumed that the slopes could show tension cracks of up to 10% of the slope

height.

Page 271

International Symposium on Stability of Rock Slopes

Ricardo Sepulveda

from Duncan (2000). For this purpose it was assumed that the uncertainty in the

properties could be represented through coefficients of variation of 10% and 40% of

the friction angle and the cohesion respectively.

To evaluate the stability in seismic conditions a pseudo static analysis was

performed. According to the previous section, it was considered that the occurrence

of an operational earthquake is equivalent to a seismic horizontal coefficient equal to

0.05g, and that the occurrence of the maximum probable earthquake is equivalent to

a horizontal seismic coefficient equal to 0.12g.

Program SLIDE was used to perform the stability analysis. In Figure 7 a typical

evaluation with this method is shown, the input data to this program are summarized

as follows:

The geometry of the slope to be analyzed is provided, including the contacts

between each of the geotechnical units.

The geotechnical parameters in each of the geotechnical units were input for every

section. These parameters are shown in Table 2.

The phreatic level is included

for every section.

SECCIN P4

Since the material is a rock

mass, the search for the critical

surface will be performed for a

non-circular surface using the

GLE option in SLIDE.

If desired, a probabilistic

analysis is used to cater for the

uncertainties.

When the pseudo static

analysis is carried out, the Figure 7: Results for interramp stability analysis for

seismic

coefficients

are Section P04-N1, of the design of Phase 1 of ENorte

for the static condition. This design has a Safety Factor

defined.

regarding method GLE of 2.849 and a Probabilistic

Superficie Crtica de Deslizamiento

Nivel Fretico

Page 272

International Symposium on Stability of Rock Slopes

Ricardo Sepulveda

The results obtained are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. These results (OUTPUT), are

also shown in Figure 7, and give the following results:

Safety Factor of the most critical surface using the method chosen (GLE, for this

case).

Location of the central point that defines the most critical surface (it is normally

identified in the figure of the section selected). The critical height fault that

determines the surface may also be appreciated.

Probability of Failure, when this result has been obtained from probabilistic

analysis.

From the results obtained, it may be determined if the evaluated interramp and

global angles satisfy the acceptability criteria, previously defined by the mine

management.

Finally, the program delivers the critical failure tonnage that would result per

linear metre of the slope (bear in mind that the sections have a unit thickness, in

this case, one metre).

Table 3: Stability Analyses Results, Phase 1

SECTOR

SECCIN

CONDICIN

H (m)

G

()

IR

()

ESTATICO

W

(Kt/m)

FS

C, K, L

C, K, L

C, D, K

P01-N1

P03-N1

P04-N1

P15-N1

P16-N1

P17-N1

54.17

1.657

22.23

1.901

8.16

2.908

195

19.70

1.997

330

69.32

1.424

DINAMICO

PF

(%)

FS

So

Tmp

1.548

1.412

GLOBAL

330

CONTACTO 1

176

CONTACTO 2

86

CONTACTO 3

GLOBAL

CONTACTO 1

120

CONTACTO 2

210

INTERRAMPA 1

111

GLOBAL

292

CONTACTO 1

142

17.78

2.366

CONTACTO 2

187

24.12

2.028

CONTACTO 3

135

9.11

2.789

2.648

2.442

GLOBAL

364

90.34

2.112

1.953

1.756

CONTACTO 1

188

2.583

2.337

CONTACTO 2

308

CONTACTO 3

50

51

50

50

50

49

50

8.90

2.433

28.45

1.693

14.53

2.849

56.99

1.720

30.57

2.781

58.94

2.207

285

44.26

CONTACTO 4

165

GLOBAL

247

INTERRAMPA 1

110

INTERRAMPA 2

138

50

41

Page 273

50

50

<1

4

<1

<1

<1

<1

1.772

1.613

2.732

2.492

1.882

1.745

1.323

1.201

2.317

2.136

1.579

1.439

2.656

2.420

1.597

1.453

2.206

2.012

1.886

1.715

2.055

1.865

2.408

2.266

2.083

15.73

2.968

2.801

2.595

66.09

2.501

2.297

2.038

12.53

2.840

2.663

2.439

22.45

2.778

2.672

2.517

<1

International Symposium on Stability of Rock Slopes

Ricardo Sepulveda

SECTOR

SECCIN

CONDICIN

H (m)

G

()

IR

()

ESTATICO

W

(Kt/m)

FS

C, K, L

C, K, L

B

C, D, K

P01-PF

GLOBAL

420

INTERRAMPA 1

300

INTERRAMPA 2

105

INTERRAMPA 3

INTERRAMPA 4

P15-PF

FS

So

Tmp

1.661

1.487

1.845

1.662

2.514

2.306

117.00

1.798

50.82

1.994

10.98

2.684

315

65.29

1.854

1.716

1.540

120

12.79

2.468

2.301

2.095

1.275

45

50

<1

GLOBAL

255

42.53

1.516

1.412

CONTACTO 1

195

25.04

1.751

<1

1.643

1.492

GLOBAL

396

159.84

1.849

1.699

1.519

2.384

2.151

2.559

2.328

1.319

1.206

P03-PF

P04-PF

PF

(%)

DINAMICO

51

50

<1

CONTACTO 1

283

147.23

2.592

INTERRAMPA 1

201

30.87

2.743

INTERRAMPA 2

165

20.98

1.416

GLOBAL

505

159.60

1.542

1.414

1.273

INTERRAMPA 1

340

72.21

1.868

1.730

1.553

INTERRAMPA 2

160

19.53

2.262

2.116

1.936

INTERRAMPA 3

345

80.69

1.681

1.560

1.397

INTERRAMPA 4

165

23.83

1.823

1.719

1.576

INTERRAMPA 5

180

22.33

2.138

2.004

1.834

92.67

1.700

72.60

1.763

53.67

2.195

GLOBAL

414

CONTACTO 1

360

GLOBAL

274

P16-PF

P17-PF

W: Fault Ton by linear meter of the slope

46

45

51

51

So: FS with operational seism

50

50

50

50

<1

<1

<1

1.588

1.446

1.635

1.485

2.059

1.864

Tmp: FS with max seism. Probable

Where an eventual instability would not involve significant consequences and perhaps a

relatively superficial slide would take place, the designs carried out can be considered

valid.

Criteria for acceptability should consider the following:

In static conditions, the slopes must be stable enough, and with a probability of

failure low enough to allow safe operation.

In a seismic operational condition, or alternatively in a moderate magnitude seismic event, but with a relatively high probability of occurrence during the operational life of the slopes, which is the case of the operational earthquake, the slopes

must be stable, with a probability of failure from medium to low.

In an extreme seismic condition, that is, in the case of a very violent seismic event

or with earthquake characteristics, but with a low probability of occurrence during

the operational life of the slopes, which is the case of the maximum probable

earthquake, the slopes must not reach the condition of limit equilibrium.

Page 274

International Symposium on Stability of Rock Slopes

Ricardo Sepulveda

Thus, the stability analyses results enable the following to be pointed out:

For the conditions of design for the stages evaluated here for ENorte from MEL,

stability problems would

not be introduced in a

RAJO ESCONDIDA

NORTE

static or seismic condition.

The Figure 8 shows the

interramp

angles

recommended for Phase 1

or premine. Even though

the evaluations of sections

P15 and P17 indicated that

the interramp angles may

be 50, mine planning

MEL determined that the

angles to be used would be

45 for the North and 49

for the Southeast.

SECCIN P15

= 1.72

FSGLE

PF

=<1%

= 50

IR

SECCIN P1

FSGLE

= 1.66

PF

=<1%

= 50

IR

SECCIN P16

FSGLE

= 2.11

PF

=<1%

= 50

IR

NGULOS

INTERRAMPA

RECOMENDADOS

FASE I

IR = 45

IR = 50

IR = 49

SECCIN P3

FSGLE

= 1.42

PF

=4%

= 50

IR

SECCIN P17

= 2.50

FSGLE

PF

=<1%

= 50

IR

SECCIN P4

= 2.85

FSGLE

PF

=<1%

= 50

IR

Figure 8: Interramp angles recommended for Phase 1 design

angles recommended for of ENorte.

the final wall, where only

the angles towards the

west side of pit ENorte would be modified, keeping the design evaluated in the feasibility study for the rest

SECCIN P15

RAJO ESCONDIDA NORTE

= 1.54

FS

of the walls. As in the

PF

=<1%

RECOMENDACIN

= 50

NGULOS INTERRAMPA

N

previous case, sections,

PIT FINAL

P15 y P17, fulfill the

criteria for an interramp

angle of 50, but mine

IR = 50

planning MEL decided

that the angles to be used

would be 43 for the

North side and 47for the

Southwest.

SECCIN P1

= 1.80

FSGLE

PF

=<1%

= 50

IR

N-115000

GLE

IR

N-114500

SECCIN P16

= 1.70

FSGLE

PF

=<1%

= 50

IR

N-114000

SECCIN

P3

N-113500

FSGLE

= 1.52

PF

=2%

= 50

IR

E-20000

E-19500

E-19000

SECCIN P17

FSGLE

= 2.20

PF

=<1%

IR

= 50

E-18500

E-17500

consolidation between the

angles recommended and

the old angles for the sectors that have been kept.

SECCIN P4

= 1.42

FSGLE

PF

=5%

= 50

IR

E-18000

N-113000

Figure 9: The hatching zone shows the interramp angle recommended (optimized), for ENorte, for the west Wall. The rest

of the walls keep the angles recommended in the feasibility

study.

Nevertheless, the good results achieved in that stage, would allow an increment of

the slope angles.

Page 275

International Symposium on Stability of Rock Slopes

Ricardo Sepulveda

This would be performed once the type of rock mass and the structural conditions in

the sectors are known, when the mining of the first phases expose the rock mass in

order to carry out a new geotechnical characterization.

N-115000

SECTOR I

SECTOR H

SECTOR J

SECTOR G

43

N-114500

SECTOR A

SECTOR B

N-114000

SECTOR F

50

(48)

45

SECTOR K SECTOR L

44

N-113500

SECTOR C

47

SECTOR E

E-20000

E-19500

E-19000

E-18000

E-17500

E-18500

SECTOR D

N-113000

Figure 10: Consolidated between the present interramp angles recommended and old ones in the sectors that have been kept in the feasibility

study for the Final Pit design of ENorte. For the West sector, the interramp

angle recommended during the feasibility study is shown in brackets.

The following are the most relevant conclusions and recommendations from this revision of the designs of Phase 1 and Final Pit, sector West from ENorte:

It is possible to increase the interramp slope angle by 2, without risking the stability of the interramp slopes, in every sector evaluated.

Accordingly, the global angles will also increase by at least 1, and maintain the

stability condition of the whole wall.

The results of the sections evaluated for both stages of design, are shown in Tables 3 and 4.

It is necessary to continue considering the structures present in the rock mass, i.e.

the strength of the rock mass has a directional and anisotropic behavior. It is

common that any failure in the rock mass may be, at least partially, affected by

the presence of structures, since they define the planes of weakness.

Page 276

International Symposium on Stability of Rock Slopes

Ricardo Sepulveda

as well as a monitoring and implementation plan. This enables circumstances of

instability to be detected immediately.

As a result of the geotechnical evaluations, all the present designs, for every stage

evaluated, satisfy the acceptability criteria described. They are stable enough in

static conditions, as well as in seismic conditions. Figures 8, 9 and 10 summarize

these results.

REFERENCES

[1]

Tranques de Relaves en Chile, Etapa C: Regiones II y III, Tramo 1. Technical

Report, Ingeniera & Geotecnia Ltda.

[2]

Duncan, J. M. (2000): Factors of Safety and Reliability in Geotechnical Engineering, J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Eng., ASCE, Vol. 126, N 4.

[3]

York.

[4]

Hoek, E. & Bray, J. (1981): Rock Slope Engineering, 3rd ed., IMM, London.

[5]

Karzulovic, A., Aguirre, A. & Araya, R. (1989): Definicin del Sismo de Operacin y del Terremoto Mximo Probable para el Anlisis de Estabilidad Ssmica de

Depsitos de Relaves. Anales VI Simposium de Ingeniera de Minas, Universidad

de Santiago de Chile.

[6]

[7]

Rocscience (2003): Slide 5.0: 2D Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability for Soil and

Rock Slopes, Rocscience, Geomechanics Software & Research.

[8]

Norte, Estudio N ML-CG-2003-01, Final Report, A. Karzulovic & Asoc. Ltda.

[9]

Rajos Zaldvar y Escondida Norte (Transicin CMZ- MEL), Estudio N CMZ

2003-05, A. Karzulovic & Asoc. Ltda.

Page 277

International Symposium on Stability of Rock Slopes

Ricardo Sepulveda

Page 278

- Introduction to Environmental Geology 5th Ed. - E. Keller (Pearson, 2011)Enviado porKirkjason
- Analysis of Blocky Rock Slopes With the Shear Strength Reduction MethodEnviado porPawan Kumar
- DLL on Fault and Earthquake.docxEnviado porChar Char Pongasi
- @_Breakwater Foundation StabilityEnviado porapi-3709579
- LandslideNotes.pdfEnviado porbufalote
- SSAP Software for Advanced LEM AnalysisEnviado porriccecri
- Bray 24 May 2002 Arias Intensity AttenuationEnviado porAkhilamanne
- +Editorial SummaryEnviado porVahid Kiumarsi
- Geot58-645-Experimental Pile Subjected to a Moving SlopeEnviado porjcpchin2
- GGU-STABILITY MANEnviado porNanescu Liliana
- Chapter 1 Definition and Scope of Protective Measures for Roads_2Enviado porqatarstructz30
- Quiz 6Enviado porquirozsaldana
- ur ru presentation correctedEnviado porapi-264034043
- gregory cgs news newcastle earthquakeEnviado porapi-261866410
- IOT Seminar_Yuichiro TaniokaEnviado porDino Lesmana
- Rubric KPMT 2016 (Dalam Bahasa Inggeris)Enviado porramkumar1967
- Carter PaperEnviado porronan2000
- AubenyPresSlides-10Jun09Enviado porAnonymous D5s00DdU
- Sinteza articoleEnviado poralex Ertep
- Three Dimensional Slope Stability Analysis Using Laser Scanning and Numerical SimulationEnviado porMagfirah Ismayanti
- Griffiths 2009Enviado porGerman Rodriguez
- 1Enviado porHarun Kologlu
- Landslide Risk AssesmentEnviado porDone Nikolovski
- Spectral Acceleration Map of NCR 3 Seconds 500 Yr Return PeriodEnviado porYawgmoth
- A Project PresentationEnviado porshital bajirav sawant
- Constantine C. Spyrakos (2018) Bridging Performance Based Seismic Design With Restricted Interventions on Cultural Heritage StructuresEnviado porSusana Cuentas
- PIEAS Sample Test Paper for MS Engineers and Scientists (1)Enviado porUmairIsmail
- DESIGN CODE FOR INDONESIAEnviado porAmol Gole
- P427Enviado porPrashant Kumar Nayak
- Inggris makalahEnviado porBerkah Mulia

- Ltp WhitepaperEnviado poredatgka
- HackSpace - July 2019 UK.pdfEnviado porAngelo Bayu Lim
- Dodecahedron Shape TEMPLATEEnviado porAndres Alejandro Molina Alvarez
- Cuboid Shape fiers 1324Enviado porAndres Alejandro Molina Alvarez
- Fleurisson_-_Symphos_2011Enviado porAndres Alejandro Molina Alvarez
- How to rewrite multivariate random functions as univariate to do cokriging. A flexible algorithmEnviado porJose Maister
- 6716_OpenPitMiningContinuousEnviado porBerardo Gomez
- MineSightProductSheet_10423Enviado porAndres Alejandro Molina Alvarez
- Geostatistical Analysis of Validacion Datos 879Enviado porAndres Alejandro Molina Alvarez
- Rocas Igneas 435Enviado porAndres Alejandro Molina Alvarez
- Whittle_HybridPits.pdfEnviado porneknew
- Golder ArticleEnviado porLeonardo Cruz
- 451-470_Schellman 45Enviado porAndres Alejandro Molina Alvarez
- Standardized Emissions Inventory Methodology mining 234Enviado porAndres Alejandro Molina Alvarez
- The Generalized Variogram 2343Enviado porAndres Alejandro Molina Alvarez
- 3b879e7ab79f56a_ekEnviado porRamo Kiss
- Tailings Dams ReportEnviado porVictor Hugo Porcayo Beiza

- Strength MaterialEnviado pormaka2005
- EquilibriumEnviado porNurRiskawati
- 13718-Pvt Correlations for Middle East Crude OilsEnviado porLucero Hdez
- 2351 a Kullback Leibler Divergence Based Kernel for Svm Classification in Multimedia ApplicationsEnviado porSanae Nasmatl
- ENGINEERING METROLOGY AND MEASUREMENTS -QUESTION BANKEnviado porGeorge Oliver.D
- naap_pos_sg.pdfEnviado porWulan Dwi
- Thermodynamics-Principles-and-Applications.pdfEnviado porMohamed Salama
- Mercury perihelion precessionEnviado porJános Rohán
- Dis TronicEnviado porgeorge_mudura1
- wu_ijmpa_21_3235_06Enviado porroesch1986
- The Postulates of Quantum MechanicsEnviado porzikibruno
- Power Generation From Speed BreakerEnviado porSuraj Nm
- Weber K. y Osborn M. 1969. the Reliability of Molecular Weight Determinations by DodecylEnviado porEsaú Bojorquez Velazquez
- Shearwall Design of Rcccc Structure 111111222222298909Enviado porShams Khattak
- Dirac EquationEnviado porSushruti Richaa Kashyap
- LinearAlgebra Author BenjaminEnviado porAlok Thakkar
- Module 3Enviado porstreetranpu
- Electrolytic in-Process Dressing (ELID) TechnologiesEnviado porFELIPE DURAN
- Force and Acceleration on the Air TrackEnviado porBahril Ilmiwan
- Kinetic Theory of GasesEnviado porRosmaya Mokhtar
- Ternary Number SystemEnviado porKayla Rivas
- AA 5052-0Enviado porYogesh Dewang
- INTRODUCCIÓN MeccanicaRocceEnviado porTherionhenry
- 110266_MM_TechDS_1512Enviado porMuhamad Zaky
- CHAPTER 10 - Lecture NotesEnviado porAlex
- 131653536-Castigliano-s-2nd-Theorem.pdfEnviado porDžuzdanović Senad
- Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Shell ElementsEnviado porRenish Regi
- PESTR8Enviado porNeel Somudro
- Pressure CalibratorsEnviado porsng1881
- Rheology Measurements in Fundamental UnitsEnviado porhddhermit