Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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)
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 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
SECTOR G
43
SECTOR A
48
SECTOR B
N-114000
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
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
P17P17-PF
E-19000
E-18500
E-18000
E-17500
P04P04-PF
P17P17-N1
Page 266
Stage
Vertical Section(s)
Phase1
364
Final Pit
505
(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:
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.
SECCIN P1
ZO
LL
FA
RIOL(QSA)-1
GRD(QSA)-2
RIOL(QSA)-1
NIVEL FRETICO
GRD(QSA)-8
C(BIO)-5
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 6: Plan for the Final Pit with the lithologies present in the pit.
Page 268
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
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 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
Nivel Fretico
Page 272
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
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
46
45
51
51
50
50
50
50
<1
<1
<1
1.588
1.446
1.635
1.485
2.059
1.864
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
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
= 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
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
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
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]
[2]
Duncan, J. M. (2000): Factors of Safety and Reliability in Geotechnical Engineering, J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Eng., ASCE, Vol. 126, N 4.
[3]
[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]
[9]
Page 277
Page 278