11 views

Uploaded by Steve Hughes

Stability Analyses of Footwall Slopes in Open Pit Mining

- RESERVORIO PETACA
- articulo 1
- Estribo HºAº
- CAPITULO N°4 - HUNDIBILIDAD
- Diapositiva N_ 8-9 - 2da Ley de La Termodinámica
- Ciculo de Mor
- Presentacion Calculo Potencia Agitacion y Mezcla Liquidos
- Ejercicios de Estatica
- Ejercicios Armaduras 1 2 3
- TP9
- Presiones Suelo
- Analisis de Estructuras
- Formulas Anexo
- Física 3, 2017, Ejercicio 1.1
- 43 Reservorio Elevado 15 m3 - Calculo Estructural
- Cuadro de Momentos Boria PUENTE VIGA LOSA
- MEC2248 P2 I2019
- Revisiones de Resultados ETABS V15 Segun R001 Norma Dominicana.
- Preguntas Limites de Atterberg y Corte Directo
- 2.pdf

You are on page 1of 10

MINING

ANLISISDEESTABILIDADDETALUDESDEMUROEN

EXPLOTACIONESMINERASACIELOABIERTO

LEANDROR.ALEJANO

DepartamentodeIngenieradelosRecursosNaturalesyMedioAmbiente,UniversidaddeVigo, Espaa,alejano@uvigo.es

ABELSNCHEZJUNCAL

DepartamentodeIngenieradelosRecursosNaturalesyMedioAmbiente,UniversidaddeVigo,Espaa

ReceivedforreviewMay20th,2009,acceptedDecember6th,2009,finalversionDecember17th,2009

ABSTRACT:Inthispaperweanalysedifferentfailuremechanismstypicallyassociatedtofootwallslopes,inorder

toevaluateitsstabilityusingthenumericcodeUDEC.Theseresultswillthenbeanalysedandcontrastedagainstthe

LimitEquilibriumMethod(LEM)todeterminetheuseof UDECasavalidtoolinfootwallslopeanalysis.Two

real cases, where the footwall slope failure took place through complex mechanisms, are finally analysed using

UDEC.

KEYWORDS:Rockengineering,Stabilityanalyses,Footwall slope,UDEC.

RESUMEN:Ensteartculoseanalizandiferentesmecanismosderoturatpicamenteasociadosataludesdemuro,

conelobjetivodepoderevaluarsuestabilidad,medianteelcdigonumricoUDEC(CdigodeElementosDistintos

Universal). Se analizan, tambin, mediante mtodos de equilibrio lmite (MEL), comparndose los resultados

obtenidosporambosmtodos,afindedeterminarlavalidezdelcdigoUDECcomoherramientadeanlisisdela

estabilidaddetaludesdemuro.Seincluyeadems,elanlisisdedoscasosreales,enlosquelaroturadeltaludse

produjopormecanismoscomplejos.

PALABRASCLAVE:Mecnicaderocas,Anlisisdeestabilidad,Taludesdemuro,UDEC.

placeinsedimentaryrockwheretheyaremore

In mineral deposits associated with sedimentary common(seeforinstanceCoulthardetal.[1]or

rock,theeconomiclimitiscommonlydefinedby Hawleyetal.[2])butithasalsobeenobserved

the footwall of the deeper seam to be mined. in metamorphic rocks like slate whenever a

Where open pit mines are developed in dipping slope is designed parallel to cleavage and in

strata,ahighfootwallslopemayresult,whichis any type of opencast seam mining in which

usually designed with an angle equal or less behind the footwall slope any persistent

steep than that of the bedding planes to avoid discontinuityorweakmaterialisencountered.

planarfailure(seeFigure.1).

This design is sometimes appropriate, but some This lastcase has beenreported for instance, in

failure mechanisms associated with bedding the case study of a quartz mine [3] and in the

planes or any other persistent discontinuity casestudyoftheBrendaMine,whereclaygouge

parallel to the slope may occur producing zonesinducedwallslopeinstabilitiesinaquartz

undesirableinstabilityeffects,whosestudyisthe dioritehostrock[4].

objectofthispaper.

Dyna,year77,Nro.161,pp.6170.Medelln,March,2010. ISSN00127353

62 AlejanoandSnchez

factorofsafety(FoS)canbeestimatedforthese

mechanisms according to limit equilibrium

methods (LEM) [8]. This FoS can also be

calculated according to the shear strength

reduction technique (SSRT) and by means of

numerical models. For the failure modes where

discontinuities play a significant role, it is very

appropriatetousedistinctelementcodessuchas

UDEC[5].

thisway,ifonemodelsaslope,eitheritisstable

or it falls. Therefore, in order to obtain a FoS

with numerical models, we need to use special

techniques, such as the SSRT. This technique

estimates the factors of safety (FoS) by

performing a series of models with different

Figur e1. Typicalfootwallslopewherethe tentative values of the FoS. These tentative

instabilitiesanalyzedinthisstudy maytakeplace valuesareusedtoreducetheactualvaluesofthe

strength properties of the rock and joints

(cohesion, friction, tensile strength), until the

These instability mechanisms are not veryoften instability of the slope is observed. The final

considered in classic civil or mining rock slope value of the FoS according to the SSRT is that

designtechniques.However,theyhaveproduced corresponding to a limiting state (equilibrium

some important accidents in mines. They are instability).

mainly linked to the sliding of a mass of rock

throughoneofthesepreexistingdiscontinuities, Inthispaper,wepresentaseriesofsimplecases

but they also need either one or more smaller of possible footwall slope failures. We will

discontinuities, or the yield of an area of intact analysethembymeans ofLEM.Thentheywill

rock due to compressive, shear or tensile stress bestudiedbymeansoftheUDECSSRT.

toallowtoebreakout.

practice,thesetypesofphenomenawerestudied

by means of standard Limit Equilibrium High slopes with persistent discontinuities

Methods(LEM).However,presentlyanddueto parallel to the slope face are prone to fail

the advances in numerical modeling, distinct accordingto different mechanisms,reviewedby

element codes, such as UDEC [5], have shown Hawley et al. [2] and can be primarily divided

tobeausefultooltounderstandthemechanism according to the full or partial discontinuity

associated with these phenomena and to control. If the failure mechanism is totally

calculate the safety factor of the designed controlled by preexisting discontinuities, the

footwall slope, based on the shear strength instability phenomena presented in the next

reductiontechnique[6].Thenumericalapproach section may take place. If no secondary joints

tostudytheseproblemswasfirstlyintroducedby enablinginstabilityexist,then,thediscontinuity

SteadandEberhardt[7] controlisonlypartialandthefailurephenomena

necessitatingthecrushingorshearingoftherock

mass. The instability mechanisms resulting in

2.METHODOLOGY this case are geometrically similar to the

previously mentioned ones, but they are

We have analysed different problems with obviouslylesslikelytooccur.

different footwall slope failure mechanisms. A

Dyna161,2010 63

when slab sliding along a primary discontinuity

combines with sliding along a joint, which

strikessubparalleltotheslopeface,causingthe

toe block to be lifted by sliding and eventually

rotatedoutoftheslope(Fig.2.B).Althoughthis

mechanism is not very common Ramrez

Oyanguren[9]reportedvariouscases,wherethis

typeoffailurewasobserved.

[10],isthethirdknownmechanismofthistype.

It assumes the presence of at least three joints

normal to bedding in the slopes lower part.

Failure is initiated when enough water pressure

exists in the basal plane to induce rotation or

shearingalongcrossjointscausingtheextrusion

ofblocks.(Fig.2.C).

modes but they have not been reported or

observedasfarastheauthorsareconcerned.

mechanisms

analogous to those fully controlled by

discontinuitiesandpresentedinFigure3are:

crushing in the toe of the slope, similar to the

oneallalongdiscontinuities,butwiththefailure

Figur e2. Totallydiscontinuitycontrolledfailure of the rock mass penetrating through the slope

mechanismsobservedonfootwallslopes,including toe. Recently Fisher [10] has studied in detail

A)Bilinearslabfailure,B)Ploughingslabfailureand thesemechanisms.

C)Threehingebuckling

b) Ploughing slab failure, with shearing of the

rock mass in the slope face and shearing or

3.1 Totally joint contr olled failur e

tensileseparationinthetoeoftheslope.

mechanisms

c) Euler buckling of the first rock bed as

The most commonly encountered mechanisms, presentedbyCavers[11].

presentedinFigure2include:

Due to the higher strength of the rock mass

a) Bilinear slab failure, which involves sliding versus the rock joints, these mechanisms are

along a basal plane in combination with sliding muchlesscommonthanthepreviouslypresented

along a secondary shallow dipping joint, which ones,buttheyshouldnotbeaprioridiscardedin

is undercut by the slope face (Fig. 2.A). In adesignanalysis.

reference[2]this type offailure is reportedina

mine.

64 AlejanoandSnchez

results obtained. If, as in the case of fully

discontinuity controlled cases, failure is due to

movementsofblocksfullylimitedbygeological

discontinuities, the geometry and joint shear

strength are the key parameters in the analyses

and, when no untrue assumptions are taken,

LEM are accurate enough to obtain reliable

results.

failur e

Thestabilityanalysisisdonedividingthesliding

elements into an active block (1) or slab and a

passive block (2) in the toe (Figure 4). For the

sake of simplicity, the calculations that follow

assumenullcohesionjointsandnounderground

water.

BLOQUE1

BLOCK1

S1

q W1

N1

SA

NA NA

q2 SA

BLOCK2

BLOCK2

BLOQUE2

S2 W2

N2

Figur e3. Partiallydiscontinuitycontrolledfailure First, the normal external force needed by the

mechanismsobservedonfootwallslopes,including activeblockto bestable (NA) is calculated,and

A)Bilinearslabfailurewithshearing,B)Ploughing then, this force is transferred to the resisting

slabfailurewithshearingandtensilefailureandC) blocktocalculatethesafetyfactor.Theanalysis

Eulerbuckling needs anassumption concerningthestateofthe

interface between the active and the resisting

blocks. If we assume that this boundary is

4. LIMITEQUILIBRIUMMETHODS frictionless,itcanbefoundthat:

equilibriuminarockmassorindifferentsliding W2 c o s (q 2 ) + NA s i n (q - q 2 ) t a n(f 2)

or toppling blocks in a mass. The method may F o S = (2)

require some more or less realistic assumptions W2 s i n (q 2 ) + N A c o s(q -q 2 )

be made. The degree of realism of these

Dyna161,2010 65

interface, and that the upper block is in limit slope by either sliding through the upper and

equilibrium,itcanbefoundthat: lower limiting discontinuities or rotating freely

outofthetoeoftheslope.Itturnsoutthen,that

W1 s i n (q ) - c o s (q ) t a n(f 1) a different factor of safety should be computed

N A = (3) for both types of mechanisms, finally selecting

1 -t a n (f A ) t a n(f 1) thesmallerFoS,whichwillalsomarkthetypeof

W2 c o s (q 2 ) + NA s i n (q - q 2 ) + c o s (q - q 2 ) t a n (f A ) t a n(f 2 ) (4) behaviourtobeexpected.

F o S =

W2 s i n (q 2 ) + N A c o s (q - q 2 ) - s i n (q - q 2) t a n(f A )

Assuming friction acting on the interface, we

find:

The realism of these assumptions varies W s i n (q ) - c o s (q ) t a n(f )

1 1

according to the case, so no one can be N =

A

s i n (q - q ) 1 - t a n (f ) t a n (f ) + c o s (q - q ) t a n (f ) + t a n(f )

A A 1 A 1 A

considered a priori better. However, the actual

(5)

value of the factor of safety has to be one in

between the values obtained according to the

TheFoSfortheslidingmodeiscalculatedby:

presented hypothesis. According to our N s i n (q - q ) + c o s (q - q ) t a n (f ) + W s i n (q ) t a n(f )

experience,wesuggestforpracticetheuseofthe F o S =

A A A A

2 2

N c o s (q - q ) - s i n (q - q ) t a n (f ) - W c o s(q )

average value safety factor (frictionless and A A A A 2

frictionassumptions). (6)

slabfailur e

Themethodofanalysis issimilartothebilinear

slab failure (see Figure 5). But in this case two

further topics should be considered in greater

detail.

BLOCK1

BLOQUE1

S1

W1

q SA

N1

NA

NA

qA

a SA BLOCK2

BLOQUE2

W2

Puntosobreelque

Figur e6. Detailofblock2forthetopplinganalysis

Pointaroundwhich

setomanmomentos

S2 N2 rotationmaytakeplace

rotationmaytakeplace

Figur e5. Ploughingslabfailureanalysisgeometry For the limit equilibrium of the toppling case,

some geometric values are needed, which are

defined in Figure 6. Finally, the FoS for the

First,theonlykinematicallyavailablepossibility topplingmodeis:

fortheresistingblocktomoveinvolvesthatthe l A t l t

NA t a n (f A ) lS + WA + lB c o s (q ) + s i n (q ) + WB B c o s (q ) + s i n(q )

interface inbetween blocks should be in limit F o S = 3 3 2 2

NA lS t a n(y )

equilibrium,sothesecondassumptionproposed

for the previous case should not only be used, (7)

butitisalsoahighlyrealisticone.

66 AlejanoandSnchez

Where: Table1.Factorsofsafetyfortheproposedexamples

1,2&3

l

y = a r c t a n B - (q A - q ) lS =

t

( )

l B2 +t 2 c o s(y ) Example&

(LEM) (eq.)

UDEC

mechanism. SSRT

t Example1. 0.40(frictionless) (1&2)

& l A = (8) Bilinearslab 1.45(friction) (3&4) 1.03

t a n(q A -q ) withsliding 0.92(average)

Example2.

1.76(sliding) (5&6)

Ploughingslab

2.59(toppling) (5,7&8)

1.21

(sliding)

Example3.

10.0(sliding) (5&6)

5. THEORETICALEXAMPLES Ploughingslab

2.0(toppling) (5,7&8)

1.78

(toppling)

mechanisms some theoretical examples are 5.2Example2.Ploughingslabfailur e(sliding)

analysed according to LEM and numerical

model(UDEC)andtheSSRT.Anothergoalisto The analysis studies a 25 m slope, dipping 50

contrast these techniques and highlight their

(q=50), formed by 1.5 m strata (t=1.5m), and

advantages and drawbacks. The examples

withajointstrikingparalleltotheslopeinitstoe

concerntotallyjointcontrolledmechanismsfor

whichonlyrigidblocksareneeded. and dipping towards the slope with qA =95,

according to Figure 5. There is also a joint

5.1 Example1.Bilinear slabfailur e normaltobeddingpassingthroughtheslopetoe.

For bedding planes f1 =30 and for the rest of

The analysis focuses on a 50 m slope, dipping

the joints f A = f 2 =20. The distance so called

50(q =50),formedby3 mstrata(t=3m),and

withajointstrikingparalleltotheslopeinitstoe lB inFigure6is lB =2.293m.

and dipping q 2=30. The example includes

another joint normal to bedding and located as TheresultsareshowninTable1.Alowervalue

showninFigure4.Thefrictionangleofbedding of the FoS is obtained for the sliding case than

is f 1=30andthatoftheotherjointsis fA=f2= for the toppling case. This can be read in terms

40. The specific weight for examples 1 to 5 is ofthemechanismofinstability,whichshouldbe

g = 25 kN/m3. Under these circumstances and sliding.AlsotheintheanalysiswithUDECand

applying LEM and UDEC & SSRT, the results the SSRT a sliding mechanism is observed.

areshowninTable1. Howevertheaccuratenessoftheobtainedfigures

isnotverygood.

Itcanbecheckedthatintheinterfacethereisnot

onlynormalforcefrictionlessmodel,butalso 5.3 Example 3. Ploughing slab failur e

shear one which is smaller than that needed to (toppling)

produce the movement of blocks along this

interface friction LEM. Then it seems, that The study focuses a 25 m slope, dipping 60

even if a shear force appears, it is smaller than ( q=60), formed by 1.5 m beds (t=1.5 m), and

thatneededforlimitequilibrium,sotheFoSwill withajointstrikingparalleltotheslopeinitstoe

be smaller than that obtained for that case, but and dipping towards it, with q A=95. There is

larger than the frictionless one. The factors of also a joint normal to bedding in the slope toe

safety obtained by means of UDECSRRT are and lB =3 m. The friction of bedding planes is

usually not far from the average (friction

f1 = 30and for the rest of the joints f A =f2 =

frictionless)LEMvalue.

40.

Dyna161,2010 67

The results are shown in Table 1. In this case due to the following: every factor of safety

LEM and UDECSRRT compare well, for they compares two figures, one related to the forces

bothindicatetopplingfailure,andtheFoSvalues or moments tending to stability and the other

are similar in both cases. Figure 7 shows the related to those tending to instability. Since the

UDECmechanismsofexamples1to3. approachesaredifferent,theymustonlycoincide

forthecaseoflimitequilibrium(FoS=1,00)and

theycandivergeaslongastheFoSisfarfrom1.

FoS is not an actual variable, but it is an

indicativevalueoftheriskengineersarereadyto

assume.Thisisstudiedinthenextexamples.

5.4Examples4and5.Ploughingslabfailur e

representative of the failure mechanisms of

ploughingslabfailure,withslidingandtoppling

of the resisting block respectively. In both of

them,theLEMFoSobtained is 1.00,that is to

saytheyareinlimit equilibrium.Theresultsof

theanalysisareshowninTable2.

Table2.Factorsofsafetyfortheproposedexamples

4&5

Example& UDEC

(LEM) (eq.)

mechanism (SSRT)

Example4.

1.00(forsliding) (5&6)

Ploughingslab 1.00

1.93(fortoppling) (5,7&8)

failure(sliding)

Example5.

1.74(forsliding) (5&6)

Ploughingslab 0.90

1.00(fortoppling) (5,7&8)

failure(toppling)

Example5.

Ploughingslab 1,74(forsliding) (5&6)

0.9994

failure(toppling) 1.00(fortoppling) (5,7&8)

Roundness=0.0005

factor obtained by UDEC and the SSRT is

exactly 1.00, demonstrating the accurateness of

bothmethodstodetectlimitequilibrium.

even if the FoS is close to one, it differs in 0.1

Figur e7. UDECresponseofexamples1to3,where unities.This inaccurateresult was surprising,so

thedifferentmechanismscanbeobserved weinvestigatedthepossiblereasons.Wefinally

found out that this was due to the roundness of

the corners of the UDEC blocks. The program

One can be surprised at the differences in FoS selects a small value of this roundness

obtained by both methods. In the case of automatically. When changing this value to a

example1,thisisduetothefactthatneitherthe very small one (r= 0.0005 m), the FoS for

frictionless nor the friction assumptions are topplinginexample5became0,9994,andthen,

strictlycorrect.Inexamples2and3,thiscanbe practically 1.00. So it can now be stated that,

68 AlejanoandSnchez

models and close to limit equilibrium, both

techniques (LEM & UDECSRRT), yield the

sameresponse.

6.PRACTICALCASE STUDIES

both cases theLEMapproachis not easy,since

not onlyonebut variousstratawereinvolvedin

the failure processes. Therefore, an approach

Figur e9. Pictureofthetensioncrackintheupper

basedonnumericalmodels(UDEC)ispreferred

partoftheslope

in order to understand the evolution of the

instabilitymechanisms,whichtookplace.

6.1Casestudy1

Westudytheinstabilityofslopeoccurredduring

the excavation of a highway in northern Spain.

This case was presented in detail by some

authors [12]. The geometric description of the

slopeisshowninFigure8.

Figur e10.UDECmechanismofthefailureofawall

slopefailureasdevelopedbytheauthors

6.2Casestudy2

Anoutstandingfootwallslopefailuretookplace

in Leigh Creek open pit coal mine in Australia.

Theoriginalstudyofthetopicwasdevelopedby

Coulthard et al. [1], which can be consulted for

furtherdetailsonthecasestudy.

slopefailureinroadaccordingto[12] a stable one. Nevertheless, when the slope

attained a depth of 100 meters as shown in

The instability was finally caused by the water Figure 11 the slope failed. Ten very weak 1 m

pressureafteraveryrainyperiod.Adetailofthe thick strata slided through a very weak bedding

upperpartoftheslopeisillustratedinFigure9. planelocated10mbelowtheslopeface.

The UDEC analysis determined that the dry The UDEC model is able to determine the

slopewasstable,whereastheinclusionofwater instability of this slope only partially controlled

induced the instability. The failure mechanisms by discontinuities. The failure mechanism is

as derived from our UDEC approach is showninFigure12,whereitisobservedhowthe

illustratedinFigure10. toe breakout needs shearing of the rock mass.

This topic of the analysis of biplanar dip slope

Dyna161,2010 69

failurestolimitmodelandparameteruncertainty 7.CONCLUSIONS

in the determination of setback distances has

beenaddressesindetailbyFisher[10].

Footwall slope failure mechanisms have been

reviewedanddifferenttechniquesLEMandthe

SSRT with code UDEC to obtain factors of

safety in these cases have been presented and

applied to various examples and two case

studies. As a consequence of all this, the

followingconsiderationshavebeendrawn.

footwall slopes where the failure mechanism

grantslimitequilibriuminallblocksploughing

slab failure with sliding or toppling of the

resisting block. For the case of full

discontinuity controlled bilinear slab failure

results are not sufficiently good and more

realistic assumptions are needed. The role of

Figur e11.Pictureofthefootwallslopefailurein

friction could be further investigated by

LeighCreekmine

analysingpracticalcasesorbymeansofphysical

modelling.Thistopicisapresentresearchlineof

theauthors.

failuremechanismrequiresshearingthroughthe

rockmassoralongadiscontinuityabovethetoe.

Therefore, the frictionless model proposed by

Hawley et al. [2] is really not appropriate for

theses cases. This is illustrated in Figure 12.

These failure mechanisms are complex and

needs shear failure through the rock mass.

Fischer [10] provides an interesting discussion

onthetopic,whichfalls outofthescopeofthis

study.

SSRTinthat it is easiertoperformfurther but

Figur e12. DetailoftheUDECmodelshowingthe commonly needed analysis like parametric

shearingoftherockinthebaseoftheslopefailurein studies, backanalysis, statistical analysis like

LeighCreekmine.Remarkthatshearingoftherock MonteCarloandsoon.

massisrequiredfortoebreakout

The combination of the SSRT with UDEC is a

verystrongtechniqueto estimateFoSfor every

mechanism of footwall slope instability, having

According to this case it is clear that very

the advantages of finding automatic and

complex mechanisms are difficult to analyseby

naturally the failure mechanism and the critical

meansofLEM,andatoolsuchasUDECcanbe

slip or separation surfaces. It should be used

very helpful for understanding and identifying

within the frame of more wide design

wall slope failure mechanisms in actual case

methodologyasproposedbyStarfield&Cundall

studies,aswellastostudyitspossibleevolution.

[13], that is to say as a tool for thinking and

70 AlejanoandSnchez

understanding mechanisms, more than a [6] DAWSON, E.M., ROTH, W.H. &

calculatingmachine. DRESCHER, A. Slope stability analysis by

Strength reduction. Geotechnique. 49(6): 835

Nevertheless,this technique is morecomplexto 840,1999.

use making more difficult the carrying out of

furtherstudies. [7] STEAD, D., EBERHARDT, E.

Developmentsintheanalysis of footwallslopes

insurfacecoalmining.EngineeringGeology46:

8.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4161.1997.

Galicia(ConselleradeInnovacineIndustriade ALEJANO, L.R. Numerical and Analytical

la Xunta de Galicia) the financing received to stability analysis of footwall slopes in opencast

develop this research project under the title coalmines. Geotech. Meet. Santiago de Chile

Stability analysis of wall slopes, with (Chile).September,1992.

referencenumber(INCITE08PXIB304076PR).

[9] RAMREZ OYANGUREN, P. 2003.

Personalcommunication.

REFERENCES

[10] FISHER, B.R. Improved characterization

[1] COULTHARD, M.A., LUCAS D.S. AND and analysis of biplanar dip slope failures to

FULLER,P.G.ApplicationofUDECtoastress limit model and parameter uncertainty in the

relatedmineslopefailurealLeighCreek,South determination of setback distances. [PhD

Australia. Proceedings of the Symposium on Thesis]. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada:

Numerical Modelling of Discrete Materials, UniversityofBritishColumbia,2009.Available:

Bochum (Germany). Ed. Konietzky. Balkema. https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/11559. [Visited

Pp.289296.October2004. 15December2009].

C.P. Failure mechanics and design buckling of rock slopes. Rock Mech. & Rock

considerations for footwall slopes. 87th Ann. Eng.14:87104,1981.

Gen. Meet. Can. Inst. of Min. & Metall.

Vancouver.29pp.1985. [12] MANERA BASSA, C. RAMREZ

OYANGUREN,P.Roturaendosbloquesdelos

[3] ALEJANO, L.R. GARCA BASTANTE, taludes de muro de explotaciones de carbn.

F., ALONSO, E. & GMEZMRQUEZ, I. BoletnGeolgico yMinero. Volumen99.261

Stability analysis and design of two quarry 266,1986.

slopes with the help of numerical modeling.

EUROCK 2001, ISRM Symposium, Rock [13] STARFIELD, A.M. & CUNDALL, P.A.

Mechanics a challenge for society. Espoo, Towards a methodology for rock mechanics

Finland.Ed.Balkema.June,2001. modelling. Int. J. of Rock Mech. Min. Sci. &

Geom.Abstr.25(3):99106,1988.

[4] CALDER,P.N..ANDBLACKWEL, G.H..

Investigation ofa complexrockdisplacement at

Brenda Mines. The Canadian Mining and

MetallurgyBulletin.Pp.110.August,1980.

Version 3.1. Itasca Consulting Group Inc.,

Minnesota,USA.

- RESERVORIO PETACAUploaded byRodry Fernandez
- articulo 1Uploaded byjuanpablo2011
- Estribo HºAºUploaded byminubebiblioteca
- CAPITULO N°4 - HUNDIBILIDADUploaded byeduardoenrique08289
- Diapositiva N_ 8-9 - 2da Ley de La TermodinámicaUploaded byJhulyñoTuziquiñooLokiio
- Ciculo de MorUploaded byAnonymous V7GXZ8bTCu
- Presentacion Calculo Potencia Agitacion y Mezcla LiquidosUploaded bygabyvargas
- Ejercicios de EstaticaUploaded byKenny Romero
- Ejercicios Armaduras 1 2 3Uploaded byKevin Manzanero
- Presiones SueloUploaded byalejandro_baro419
- Analisis de EstructurasUploaded byMiguel Angel Duerto
- 43 Reservorio Elevado 15 m3 - Calculo EstructuralUploaded byepazt12-1
- TP9Uploaded byAngel Navarro Labastida
- Formulas AnexoUploaded byIng. Telligent
- Cuadro de Momentos Boria PUENTE VIGA LOSAUploaded byDylanBoria
- Revisiones de Resultados ETABS V15 Segun R001 Norma Dominicana.Uploaded byericbenzo
- Física 3, 2017, Ejercicio 1.1Uploaded byLudwin Wilfredo Díaz Jiménez
- MEC2248 P2 I2019Uploaded byRamiro Moler
- Preguntas Limites de Atterberg y Corte DirectoUploaded byJulio Palomino Blanco
- 2.pdfUploaded byalexarturo
- calculosUploaded byBolivar Castillo
- Partiendo Del Análisis SísmicoUploaded byZumi Valverde Aranda
- Memoria Galera MinaUploaded byJose Leonardo Perez Perez
- GRANULOMETRÍA EN SUELOS 3Uploaded byJonathan Garcia Gomez
- PRACTICA DE DIFUSIVIDAD.docxUploaded byJoseXochihuaJuan
- 177-1PresionesDeTierraSobreMurosUploaded byByron
- DIMENSIONAMIENTO ESTRIBOS PAMPAMUploaded byJose Morales
- 6.docxUploaded byJhocelyne Greiz A. Ichuta
- Cálculos del Ponton Peatonal L=7.5mUploaded byErwin Lopez Casaverde
- CapIII_115-146Uploaded byantiacido

- Diccionario Ingles TecnicoUploaded byBruno Jetin
- Soda CáusticaUploaded byezequiel uzcategui
- Clase 5.- Colonizacion Bacteriana Primaria y Secundaria. BiofilmUploaded byJosefa Venegas
- LA DEPRESIÓN CF2Uploaded byAnonymous mRulBCCUN
- Sistema Financiero NacionalUploaded bychaperito2015
- PPT CEPLANconResidentes 10Oct17 (1)Uploaded byFilemon Sulca Peña
- RPM Y FACTORES DE RIESGOUploaded byJorgeCavero
- Ciclo Vital y Estructura Familiar de Fam MexicanaasUploaded byQAArevalo
- Laboratorio 2: Espejo Sencilla de Corriente + WilsonUploaded byCarlos Hortúa Calderón
- proyecto ambiental 2017Uploaded byRonald Colorado
- hipertencionUploaded byLaleshka Pérez
- Derechos HumanosUploaded byMélissa Martínez
- PLAN LECTOR T-06 La Estructura de La TierraUploaded bypsabiote
- La TartamudezUploaded byImara Barceló
- ModuloUploaded bydsdsds
- Las 50 Mejores Frases Célebres de Paul McCartneyUploaded byZubCero
- Johanna Gomez S_control 8.docxUploaded byJohanna
- Simon BolivarUploaded byMarthik Sanchez
- MAT - U4 - 1er Grado - Sesion 08Uploaded byFabricio Varovsky Muñiz Arteaga
- nuevo documento de microsoft wordUploaded byapi-256528071
- ARBOL-DE-LA-SALUD-MENTAL- Editado.docxUploaded byJehimy Joey Cabrejos Garcia
- 148 Guía de Autoevaluación - Simulacro Macrozona SurUploaded byWendy Helen Alvarez Alarcón
- Proyectos de Aplicación de Conjuntos Para CSRUploaded byecafate
- DIA 2 Grupos 5 6 8 EspanholUploaded byFernando Antonio
- Respiracion ClavicularUploaded byPablo Martinez
- refam 1Uploaded byBonisu Gennai
- Clase Arácnida.docxUploaded byLuvix Jim Mix
- Cultelli, Andrés - La Revolución Necesaria. Contribución a La Autocrítica Del MLN-Tupamaros.Uploaded byvictorhpralong
- sensopercepcionUploaded byGabriela Piguave Iperty
- Notas Explicativas a Los Balances y Demas NovedadesUploaded byKaren Montez