Figure 2.2: Geological Units Present in the Chuquicamata Mine (including lithology and alterations) Table 2.1: Characteristics of the Structural Domains of the Chuquicamata Mine. Figure 2.5: Geotechnical Units of the Chuquicamata Mine. Table 2.2: Properties of the Discontinuities (typical values) Table 2.3: Properties of Geotechnical units (typical values) The failure mechanism previously described allows concluding the following: Figure 2.10: Ultimate Pit Design of the Chuquicamata Mine Table 2.4: Current Slope Design of the West Wall at the Chuquicamata Mine. There are several methods of calculating the value of the standard deviation of the Table 3.1: Acceptance Criteria for Rock Slopes (after Priest and Brown, 1983; Pine, 1992) There are several potential merits for adopting a probabilistic approach to slope Table 4.1: The Range of Variables for Plane Failures. Table 4.2: Range of Variables for Wedge Failures. represented by a simple Mohr-Coulomb criterion, given as: Figure 4.1: Sliding Block in an Inclined Surface with Angle wp. Table 4.3: Summary of Statistical Analysis of the Laboratory Tests. Figure 4.4: Linear Regression of Laboratory Shear Tests. Table 4.4: Summary of Statistical Analysis of Cohesion and Friction Angle Values. Figure 4.5: Values of Cohesion Back-Calculated from Failed Cases versus Frictior Angle Estimated from Laboratory Tests. when the rock mass is known for its poor geomechanical qualities. ‘igure 4.6 Efficiency of the Statistical Approach of Estimating Factors of Safety for Different Standard Deviation, o = 0.1(—); o = 0.2 (...); o = 0.3 (---) (after Salamon and Munro, 1967). Figure 4.7: Results Obtained Using Plane Failures and Limited Maximum Likelihood. Figure 4.9: Results Obtained Using both Failed and Unfailed Cases for Plane Failure Formula and Utilizing Full Maximum Likelihood. Figure 4.10: Shear Strength and Shear Stress Acting on the Plane Relationship for Plane failed (+) and Unfailed (0) Cases. Table 5.1: Strength and Deformability Parameters for the Rock Mass Used in Numerical Modeling for each geotechnical unit used for the analysis. Figure 5.2: Failure Mechanism Controlling the Interramp Slope Design of the West Wall. occurred, would be on a composite planar surface as shown in Figure 5.2 Figure 5.4: Proposed Interramp Slope Design for the West Wall. Figure 5.6: Slope Geometry, Option 2, platform 200 m Wide on the Shear Zone. Figure 5.8: Deformed Mesh Plot and Factor of Safety Corresponding to the Option 1 Solution with a FS 1.30: (a) deformed mesh: (b) FS versus displacement. Figure 5.10: Deformed Mesh Plot and Factor of Safety Corresponding to the Option 3 Solution with FS = 1.60: (a) deformed mesh; (b) FS versus displacement. Table 5.2: Mean and Standard Deviation of Cohesion and Friction Angle of eack Geotechnical Unit. Table 5.3: Factor of Safety Obtained from Four Combinations of Cohesion and Friction Angle. Table A2: Data concern to the wedge failures. Calculation:
