Você está na página 1de 14

The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

International Symposium on Stability of Rock Slopes


Ricardo Sepulveda

SLOPE OPTIMIZATION AT ESCONDIDA NORTE OPEN PIT


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)

Geotechnical report of previous studies for ENorte.

(c)

Technical data provided by MEL, regarding the geotechnical properties of


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

The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy


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

The sectors revised are of the West side


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

SECTOR G

43

SECTOR A

48

SECTOR B

N-114000

The two phases of designs of slopes


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

Figure 1: Plan of design for the Final Pit, with the


interramp angles recommended in the stage of the
feasibility study ENorte, with the sectors of design.

The locations of the stages 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

Figure 2: Plan of Design for Phase 1 of


ENorte, with the sections of Design evaluated.

P17P17-PF

E-19000

E-18500

E-18000

E-17500

P04P04-PF

P17P17-N1

Figure 3: Plan of Design for the Final Pit of


ENorte, with the sections of Design evaluated.

Page 266

The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy


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

P01-N1, P03-N1, P04-N1, P15-N1, P16-N1, P17-N1

Final Pit

505

P01-FP, P03-PF, P04-FP, P15-PF, P16-FP, P17-FP

This study is also based on the following considerations and suggestions:

The following data was provided by the feasibility study of ENorte:


(a)

Geological report, location and geometry of the geological contacts.

(b)

Structural systems, limits of structural domains, location of fault zones.

(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:


Location and geometry of the geological contacts

Main failure systems


Page 267

The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy


International Symposium on Stability of Rock Slopes
Ricardo Sepulveda

Phreatic level location

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.

RAJO ESCONDIDA NORTE


FASE I

SECCIN P1

ZO

LL
FA

RIOL(QSA)-1

In Figures 5 and 6, plans with the


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

Figure 4: Section P01-N1, of the design of Phase 1 from


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

Figure 5: Plan for Phase 1 with the lithologies


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

The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy


International Symposium on Stability of Rock Slopes
Ricardo Sepulveda

GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES OF THE ROCK MASS


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

The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy


International Symposium on Stability of Rock Slopes
Ricardo Sepulveda

SEISMICITY AND SEISMIC RISK


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:

o The frequence of seismic occurrence may be represented by the empirical law of


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

The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy


International Symposium on Stability of Rock Slopes
Ricardo Sepulveda

MAXIMUM PROBABLE EARTHQUAKE: corresponding to a very violent seismic


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%

MAXIMUM PROBABLE EARTHQUAKE:

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

MAXIMUM PROBABLE EARTHQUAKE : kH = 0.12 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

The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy


International Symposium on Stability of Rock Slopes
Ricardo Sepulveda

 The Probability of Failure, PF, was evaluated according to recent recommendations


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

Failure < 1.0%.

Page 272

The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy


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

The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy


International Symposium on Stability of Rock Slopes
Ricardo Sepulveda

Table 4: Stability Results Final Pit (West Wall)

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

H: Height of the slope analyzed


W: Fault Ton by linear meter of the slope

46

45

51
51

G: Global Slope Angle


So: FS with operational seism

50

50

50
50

<1

<1
<1

1.588

1.446

1.635

1.485

2.059

1.864

IR: Interramp Slope Angle


Tmp: FS with max seism. Probable

EVALUATION OF THE RESULTS

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

The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy


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

The Figure 9 shows the


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

The Figure 10 shows a


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

The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy


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.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy


International Symposium on Stability of Rock Slopes
Ricardo Sepulveda

Maintain permanent visual observational control on the behaviour of the slopes,


as well as a monitoring and implementation plan. This enables circumstances of
instability to be detected immediately.

Maintain a tight control of the program.

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]

Araya R. (1990): Sismicidad y Riesgo Ssmico, en Levantamiento Catastral de los


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]

Harr, M. (1987): Reliability-Based Design in Civil Engineering, Dover: New


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]

Minera Escondida Limitada (2003): Feasibility Study Escondida Norte.

[7]

Rocscience (2003): Slide 5.0: 2D Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability for Soil and
Rock Slopes, Rocscience, Geomechanics Software & Research.

[8]

Seplveda, R. & Mena, C. (2003): Optimizacin ngulos de Taludes Escondida


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

[9]

Sepulveda, R & Mena, C. (2003): Evaluacin Geotcnica Explotacin Simultnea


Rajos Zaldvar y Escondida Norte (Transicin CMZ- MEL), Estudio N CMZ
2003-05, A. Karzulovic & Asoc. Ltda.

Page 277

The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy


International Symposium on Stability of Rock Slopes
Ricardo Sepulveda

Page 278