Search Documents

By V. O. Tenorio

The implementation of autonomous technologies for production in surface mines demands changes in the existing monitoring and control systems. The present study deals with the concepts involved in the development of a decision support system (DSS) for the supervision of a combined fleet of manned and unmanned equipment operating in a surface mine. The project was carried out as part of an autonomous mining program that lasted from early 2006 until the end of 2008. The objective of the DSS was to achieve short-term planning goals while maintaining safe working conditions. Supervisory tasks become more complex when several autonomous vehicles operate simultaneously alongside manned equipment. The operation center where the DSS was installed allowed autonomous vehicle operations to be controlled while tracking technology reliability experiments performed on control display interfaces and interaction provided design parameters for more complex supervisory systems for autonomous mines. Mining Engineering, 2011, vol. 63, no. 11, pp. 80-86. Official publication of the Society for mining, metallurgy and exploration, Inc.

Jan 1, 2011

By F. W. Gray

Foreword: It is not my purpose, in this address, to write the history of the Geological Survey of Canada, which has from time to time been reviewed by the officers of the Survey itself, and by men more competent than myself to handle so large a subject, but rather to set out some of the reasons for the regard in which the Survey is held by our Institute, the body best qualified to speak for the mining men of Canada. And, a further purpose is to publish the desire of our Institute that the work of the Survey shall be maintained at the highest pitch of efficiency the resources of our country. will permit, because to scrimp expenses on the Survey is 'to save at the spigot and lose at the bunghole." A historical examination of the grounds on which it may be asserted the Geological Survey has been, and still is, of fundamental economic value to our country, discloses a prescience on the part of the forefathers of Canada, calling for our admiring gratitude, and reveals a unanimity among the real leaders of Canadian thought, on the value of geological knowledge, that is impressive in its continuance dawn to this date. There seems always to have been before our people the realisation that large stretches of Canada are unfitted for agricultural settlement, and that our glaciated areas, the barrens and tundra of the North, and our extensive mountain ranges, had promise of compensating mineral content which the geologist and the prospector, labouring together through the years, would disclose. The Geological Survey is one of Canada's oldest public services, distinguished by an unimpaired tradition of honourable and useful labour. Founded in 1843, under William Edmond Logan, not yet 'Sir William', one year after the Act of Union, it was directed by him until 1869, or into the early years of Confederation, so that the early years .of the Survey were also, politically, the formative years of Canada, as we know her today.

Jan 1, 1932

By Jim Bruce, Peggy Hagerty Duffy, Mary Ellen Large, Allen Cadden

"Over the past 40 years, Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) has executed its mission “to bring together multi-disciplined individuals and organizations to find common ground and create a shared vision and consensus voice for continual advancement in the deep foundations industry”. Like DFI, micropile technology began a significant growth path in the mid-1980s. This paper highlights how DFI’s mission was executed in the deployment and expansion of micropile technology.INTRODUCTIONMicropiles are small diameter foundation elements constructed using specialty drilling and grouting methods. Micropiles have evolved since their introduction into the North American market in the 1970s from being lightly loaded (less than 30 kips) elements used primarily for remedial applications, to today’s high-capacity, often hybridized foundation systems, for both remedial and new-build projects. Micropiles now occupy a substantial market segment in North America.For 40 years, DFI has aimed to be the forum for discussion of all issues related to deep foundations design and construction. DFI now supports 21 technical committees and working groups on all deep foundations technologies and has expanded to include regional chapters in Europe, India and the Middle East.Several key steps are required for the successful execution of DFI’s mission, including identifying a need, engaging dedicated and knowledgeable people, developing effective vehicles and resources for information sharing, cultivating stakeholder contributions and advancements, stimulating influence/impact on deep foundations market, and expanding approaches to continue progress. Pile drivers in New York City (the original organizers of DFI) positively affected their market using these same steps: they recognized a specific need, gathered the people who could affect change, convened a discussion forum (which is common today, but was innovative at the time), defined tasks to address the issues, and influenced their market by improving means, methods and owner perception of their services. These forward thinking, proactive members created a mechanism for communication among all related parties that would advance the profession by improving safety, quality and value of pile driving construction.Micropile technology has evolved in the United States and around the world for the past four decades. The accumulated efforts of DFI and other, similar organizations such as The International Association of Foundation Drilling (ADSC) have contributed to this evolution. The advancement of the micropile industry – and consequently the micropile market – has been intimately tied to the execution of the mission of DFI."

Jan 1, 2017

By Glasson K. R

The history of Ore Reserve classification and reporting in Australia is largely a history of the Australian mining industry itself. In the late 1800s, when the industry was dominated by small scale, high grade underground mines, Reserves (if estimated) were based on hand sampling and geological inference, and reporting of Reserves was either non-existent or of extremely variable quality. By the mid-20th century, the industry was dominated by large underground base metal and gold mines. Reserve estimation was coming under the control of skilled geologists and mining engineers, however Reserve classification and reporting standards continued to vary in type and quality from mine to mine. Today, large scale, low grade mining operations predominate, and Reserve estimates are generally based on extensive drilling results processed (with geological control) by computer. Through the efforts of a Joint Committee established by The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and Australian Mining Industry Council, Reserve and Resource classification and public reporting has been standardised and controlled by adoption of the ""Australasian Code for the Reporting of Identified Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves"" released in 1989. The Code, which will continue to be modified and improved by the Joint Committee, has also been used as a basis for guides to reporting in other countries, and there is now some hope that this difficult and vexing topic may finally become subject to international standards and controls.

Jan 1, 1992

By Silas C. Nichols, Jennifer E. Nicks

"Limit states design (LSD), or load and resistance factor design (LRFD), is a method to account for the uncertainty in loads and resistance through a reliability calibration that requires all applicable limit states (strength, service and extreme) to be checked during foundation design. LRFD has been in use internationally for several decades; however it wasn’t until recently that engineers working on highway projects were required to use the method for the design of highway bridges and other appurtenances. Although the bridge community has been using a form of limit states design for structural components since the early 1970s, the design of foundations for bridges, walls and other geotechnical features had long been performed using allowable stress design (ASD), whereby all uncertainty in loads and material resistance is combined in a single factor of safety. While the move to LRFD was viewed as a more rational approach for the design of bridges and structures, the transition to its use for geotechnical engineering has been met by many with confusion and difficulties in application. This article will revisit the history of transition from ASD to LRFD for geotechnical engineering, summarize the status of the transition and issues with its use, and briefly discuss some emerging research opportunities for improving and advancing the design platform.Background and HistoryUntil about a decade ago, foundations and substructures for bridges were traditionally designed using ASD, while the superstructure was designed using load factor design (LFD), a precursor to LRFD that incorporated factored design loads but no risk assessment. This combination led to uncertain and incompatible safety margins in design for the various bridge components. In 1986, the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures (SCOBS) concluded that the standard bridge specifications in use at the time for U.S. transportation projects had significant inconsistencies and gaps, wasn’t up to date with emerging technology and that the development of new specifications was warranted. The proposed solution by the subcommittee was to transition to a more coherent method of design where applicable failure and serviceability conditions could be evaluated considering the uncertainties associated with loads and resistance."

Jan 1, 2015

By F. L. Pirkle, W. C. Bagby

"In his 1989 book, The New Realities, Peter F. Drucker, Clark Professor of Social Science at Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, CA, stated: “Information is data endowed with relevance and purpose. Converting data into information thus requires knowledge. And knowledge, by definition, is specialized” (p. 209).The discipline of mineral valuation is knowledge-based and requires a mineral valuer to collect, analyze and interpret data that are material to a mineral-valuation assignment. In so doing, the valuer turns the data into information (data come first, followed by information as determined by the mineral valuer) for use by the client (from whom the valuer obtained the mineral-valuation assignment) and other intended users. The valuer uses his or her experience and education (each valuer’s knowledge base) supported by a foundation built upon competency, materiality and transparency, the three pillars of mineral valuation (minerals valuation, mineral-property valuation).The International Mineral Valuation Standards Template (IMVAL Template), third edition dated May 2018, defines mineral valuation as: “The estimation of the value of a mineral property in money or monetary equivalent. The word ‘valuation’ can be used to refer to the estimated value (the valuation conclusion) or to refer to the preparation of the estimated value (the act of valuing)” (p. 14).Furthermore, the IMVAL Template clearly separates valuation from evaluation: “The template deals with valuation, which is distinct from evaluation. The distinction inherent in these defined terms is that valuation addresses the estimation of value of a mineral property, whereas evaluation addresses the broader assessment of a mineral property for an investment decision (p. 2).”This is an important difference because the minerals industry commonly makes investment decisions using feasibility studies to evaluate a proposed mineral development and production project. The purpose of such investment-decision analysis is distinctly different from valuation of a mineral property, no matter where that property lies upon the mineral explorationdevelopment- production-reclamation timeline (Fig. 1). Valuation involves terms such as market value, just compensation, fair value, etc., whereas investment-decision analysis is concerned with the economic viability of a given proposed project. Although feasibility analysis and market valuation can both use discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis as a tool, the formulation of the DCFs and their interpretation are different."

Nov 1, 2019

By Michael Kynett, Francke Walberg, Richard Millet, Khaled Chowdhury, Mary Perlea

"Cutoff walls are the most common seepage improvement measure for levee flood control projects throughout California’s Central Valley. Cutoff walls are widely used because they can be implemented within an existing right of way in either heavily urbanized areas with limited access, or in high-value crop agricultural areas. The most commonly used seepage cutoff wall types are soil-bentonite (SB), soilcement- bentonite (SCB), and cement-bentonite (CB). Contract values for cutoff wall rehabilitation projects in the Central Valley range from several millions of dollars to hundreds of millions of dollars, and play a significant role in the reduction of flood risk in urban and rural areas. However, recentlycompleted construction of several levee improvement projects has shown limitations and inconsistencies among the commonly used technical specifications for construction of seepage cutoff walls. These limitations were evaluated by practicing engineers involved in different stages of cutoff wall design and construction. This paper describes the specification areas that typically generate design and construction issues. Recommended improvements to specifications are suggested to address these issues. The paper’s topics include: the applicability of the different types of cutoff wall materials and construction methods, quality control testing requirements, backfill gradation requirements, mixing procedures, and settlement criteria for backfill.INTRODUCTIONFlood control projects on the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers in the Central Valley region of Northern California consist of a large system of reservoirs, bypasses, and levees. The thousands of miles of levees within the system were largely constructed and raised by local entities as need arose; this construction occurred prior to the development of modern design and construction techniques. The majority of these levees were initially constructed to protect land for agricultural development; however, a significant portion of these areas have become or will soon be urbanized. This urbanization has historically occurred in locations right up to the levee footprint. This expedient form of historical levee construction, when combined with adverse riverine geomorphology, urban development, and productive agricultural regions, has led to a levee systems with severe seepage performance issues in a real-estate-constrained setting."

Jan 1, 2015

By J. A. Reid

THE views and observations expressed herein on this old but constantly recurring question are our own, no effort having been made to align them with standard texts. Therefore, while they may find general acceptance amongst fellow engineers, they must stand as personal opinions and as such are open to debate and discussion. In order properly to consider the subject, it should first be 'set in proper perspective. Why are Prospects Examined? Prospects are examined to determine whether they may contain economic concentrations of metals or minerals, the legitimate mining business being run, pretty largely, to make money. Next to food and clothing, modern civilization is based on metals, with which are included in this discussion minerals, oils, and fuels. A constant and increasing demand for the common metals requires the location of replacements for depleted orebodies, while the use and appreciation of new metals brings increasing demand for them. Aluminium is a good example of a metal which has, within recent years, made great progress. Today, we are becoming increasingly aware of magnesium, chromium, tungsten, thallium, and other lesser known, metals.

Jan 1, 1945

Jan 1, 1942

Jan 1, 1939

Jan 1, 1930

Jan 1, 1935

Jan 1, 1939

Jan 1, 1937

Jan 1, 1936

Jan 1, 1942

Jan 1, 1947

Jan 1, 1947

Jan 1, 1925

By Dale R. Ralston, Roy E. Williams, Gerry V. Winter, George L. Bloomsburg

Jan 1, 1986