Search Documents

By Albert Neumann, Franz-Werner Gerressen, Giancarlo Santarelli

"Diaphragm walls are known as underground structural elements commonly used for retention systems and permanent foundation walls or elements. In addition they are also quite often used as deep groundwater barriers, named Cut-Off-Walls (COW). Due to the requirements of each particular job site, e.g. the need for carrying high loads or as seepage barriers, there is an increasing industry demand for efficiently cutting into rock. Besides the removal of boulders, cutting through rock, is always the most difficult part of the excavation process of a diaphragm wall or COW.There are a number of influencing factors which have an impact on the rock cutting performance. Besides the influence of the rock characteristics itself, which is not always the same, there are other factors related to equipment, tooling as well as the operating staff. In addition to RQD, the most commonly available rock property found in geotechnical reports is the Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) value. There are however some other related properties, such as weathering, bedding, inclination, abrasiveness, etc.,which can have a major impact on the achievable cutting performance. This paper will discuss the various parameters, and how they can be considered for performance estimation. Based on experiences gained on over 100 projects, a performance estimation chart was developed to allow for a better approach to these kinds of projects. This paper also explains the general installation process in as well as some specific features related to specific site conditions. In addition, some job site references will give more detailed information about such type of site conditions and how to deal with them.Keywords: Diaphragm wall, Cut-Off-Wall, Trench Cutter, RockINTRODUCTIONDiaphragm walls are known as underground structural elements commonly used as retention systems for excavation pits, shafts, permanent foundation walls and load bearing elements.It can be anticipated that, with the increasing trend of utilizing more and more underground space to accommodate environmental considerations and urban/suburban development, there will be an increasing requirement for diaphragm wall usage in even more difficult conditions.In addition diaphragm walls can also be used as deep groundwater barriers (Cut-Off-Walls). This market has demonstrated that the demand for these types of walls is reaching ever more difficult soil conditions and greater depths which are surpassing the current industry standards. The trench cutter is the most important tool for performing this type of work."

Jan 1, 2016

By Dena Morgan, Emre Biringen

"Abstract This paper discusses the execution of pile installation and design issues at two environmentally challenging industrial sites in North America. Environmental regulations set constraints on the design and require versatility in choice of technology.For a proposed bridge, due to protected fish habitat, performing soil borings within 30 m of the creek embankment was prohibited. The limited subsurface profile indicated a thick upper layer of granular material, thus driving H-piles was considered. However, to limit generation of vibration and noise in the protected area, drilled piles had to be used. During execution, the subsurface profile differed from that in the borings 30 m away. Very soft, saturated silt was encountered at the bottom of the caisson and the length had to be redesigned very quickly while the contractor waited for instruction. For a new structure in uncontrolled fill area, performing soil borings was not allowed. It was known that a layer of peat was present in the area, but no information regarding the thickness and extent. The subsurface profile generally consisted of granular material overlying a thick compressible silt layer. Somewhere within the granular layer peat would likely be encountered. Franki piles were chosen to penetrate the peat and bear in the underlying granular material. During environmental sampling in the area, methane gas was encountered and Franki piles were no longer a viable option due to safety concerns. The foundation system was changed to steel H-piles driven to bedrock, which was more than 50 m below the ground surface and sloping. Rock shoes that would work to significant slopes had to be used in order to increase the likelihood of good embedment within the bedrock. Also, due to obstruction of an approximately 3 m thick debris field that was encountered in the upper granular soils, some of the piles had to be relocated and extra piling needed to compensate for such differences. The results of PDA testing to estimate compressive capacity and a series of lateral load tests are presented.INTRODUCTIONThe design issues that are encountered during construction can be quite problematic and have a significant impact on schedule. In order to avoid such impact on the project, a thorough subsurface investigation should be considered prior to design and construction. Better understanding of environmental regulations also prevents costly changes to the foundation design. This paper discusses the execution of pile installation and the design issues at two environmentally challenging sites in North America.BRIDGEDuring the subsurface investigation for a proposed industrial building complex, several boreholes were drilled within the footprint or in close proximity of various structures, with Standard Penetration (SPT) sampling of the upper coarse-grained soils (sand/gravel) and undisturbed sampling of the lower fine-grained soils (silt/clay). The SPT blow counts (N60) were corrected by a factor of 1.35 in order to incorporate the SPT automatic energy transfer ratio. When Modified California Sampler was used, a correction factor of 0.44 to 0.64 was also applied. N60 values were further corrected for gravel to avoid artificially high blow counts during the analyses due to spoon samples contact with gravel and cobbles, and the corrected values of (NG)60 (limited to a maximum value of 50 blows/300 mm) were used for design. The information from the SPT boreholes was then used to assess the subsurface conditions beneath the structures, as well as for a nearby bridge that was designed to cross over a creek. Since performing soil borings within 30 m of the creek embankment was prohibited due to the protected fish habitat, the investigation with regard to the bridge abutments was limited to two deep boreholes (B10-33 and B10-34) at the bridge location and two additional boreholes (B10-35 and B10- 36) located approximately 200 m upstream. The bridge location and two sets of boreholes are"

Jan 1, 2014

Jan 1, 1930

[Arizona BRENT N. RICHARD, Chairman ROBERT W. HUGHES, Vice-Chairman ROBERT E. S. HEINEMAN, Secretary-Treasurer Arizona Bureau of Mines, University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz. THOMAS G. CHAPMAN A. MENDELSOHN WILLIAM KOERNER A. C. REIFSNIDRR C. R_ . KUZELL WILLIAM M. SABEN ERNEST WITTENAU Black Hills NATHANIEL HERZ, Chairman C. E. DAWSON, First Vice-Chairman BANCROFT GORE, Second Vice-Chairman C. E. SCHMIDT, Secretary-Treasurer Homestake Mining Co., Lead, S. D. R. S. BLITZ NATHANIEL HERZ C. E. DAWSON A. I. JOHNSON L. B. EAMES F. C. LINCOLN BANCROFT GORE C. E. SCHMIDT]

Jan 1, 1940

[New York Holds monthly meetings, except June, July and August. J. E. SPURR, Chairman A D. BROKAW, Vice-chairman SIDNEY ROLLE, Vice-chairman M. H. MERRISS, Secretary-treasurer, Nichols Copper Co., 25 Broad St., New York M. F. CHASE KARL HOFFMAN Boston Meets first Monday of each winter month. C. R. HAYWARD. Chairman E. C. GEITHER, Vice-chairman D. H. MCLAUGHLIN, Secretary-treasurer Rotch Bldg., Harvard Univ. Cambridge. Mass. GEO. H. GILMAN GEO. A. PACKARD]

Jan 1, 1928

New York Holds monthly meetings, except June, July and August JOHN A CHURCH, JR, Chairman JOSEPH E POGUE, Vice-chairman SIDNEY ROLLF, Vice-chairman EDWARD C MEAGHER Secretary, Texas Gulf Sulphur Co, 41 E 42nd St, New York M H MERRISS, Treasurer, 42 Broadway, New York ARTHUR NOTMAN T T READ Boston Meets first Monday of each winter month EDWARD C GEITHER, Chairman WILLIAMS BLACK, Vice-chairman DONALD H MCLAUGHLIN, Secretary-treasurer, Rotch Bldg, Harvard Univ, Cambridge, Mass J L GILLSON A G WAITD

Jan 1, 1923

Arizona E. P. MATHEWSON, Chairman F. W. MACLENNAN, First Vice-chairman CLYDE E. WEED, Second Vice-chairman E.D. GARDNER, : Secretary-Treasurer Box 4097, University Station, Tucson, Ariz. ARTHUR CROWFOOT G.H. DOWELL HENRY F. EASTER R.D. LEISK Boston Meets first Monday each month, October to May, inclusive GEORGE, W. METCALFE, Chairman ROBERT S. WILLIAMS, Vice-chairman F. LEROY FOSTER, Secretary-Treasurer Rooms G-202, Mass. Inst. of Tech. Cambridge, Mass. FREDERICK K. MORRIS GEORGE A. PACKARD

Jan 1, 1934

Arizona ROBERT E. TALLY, Chairman CARL E. ~IILLS, Secretary-treasurer, P. 0. Box 1462, Jerome. Ariz. W. S. BOYD THOMAS H. 0. O'BRIEN F. W. MACLENNAN Boston Meets first Monday each winter month GAL~N H. CLEVENG~, Chairman HOLCOMB J. BROWN, Vice-chairman F. I,EROY FOSTER Secretary-treasurer Room 8-219, Mass. lnst: of Tech., Cambridge Mass. A. E. WELLS H. A. WENTWORTH

Jan 1, 1928

Arizona F. P. MATHEWSON, Chairman F. W. MACLENNAN, First Vice-chairman _CLYDE F. WEED, Second Vice-chairman F. D. GARDNER, Secretary-Treasurer Box 4097, University Station, Tucson, Ariz. ARTHUR CROWFOOT G. H. DOWELL HENRY F. FASTER R. D. LEISK Boston Meets first Monday each month, October to May, inclusive FREDERICK K. MORRIS, Chairman DANIEL CUSHING, Vice-chairman F. LEROY FOSTER, Secretary-Treasurer Rooms 6-202, Mass. Inst. of Tech., Cambridge, Mass. WILLIAM H. COBURN RUSSELL 01550K

Jan 1, 1934

New York Meets first Wednesday after first Tuesday of each month: DAVID H. BROWNE, Chairman. JOHN H. JANEWAY, Vice-Chairman. F. E. PIERCE, Secretary, 35 Nassau St., New York, N. Y. P. A. MOSMAN, Treasurer. LEWIS W. FRANCIS. BENJAMIN B. LAWRENCE. Boston Meets first Monday of each winter month. HENRY L. SMYTH, Chairman. ALFRED C. LANE, Vice-Chairman. HENRY A. WENTWORTH, Secretary-Treasurer, 60 India St., Boston. Mass. A. H. EUSTIS, F. G. STANTIAL. Columbia Holds four sessions during year. Annual meeting in September or October. FRANK A. ROSS, Chairman. RUSH J. WHITE, Vice-Chairman. LYNDON K. ARMSTRONG, Secretary-Treasurer, P. O. Drawer 2154, Spokane, Wash. FREDERIC KEFFER, FRANCIS A. THOMSON.

Jan 1, 1916

New York LOUIS D. HUNTOON, Chairman. ARTHUR S. DWIGHT, Vice-Chairman. THOMAS T. READ, Secretary, Woolworth Bldg., New York, N. Y. E. MALTBY SHIPP, Treasurer. GEORGE F. KUNZ, W. De L. BENEDICT. Boston ROBERT H. RICHARDS, Chairman. ALBERT SAUVEUR, Vice-Chairman. AUGUSTUS H. EUSTIS, Secretary-Treasurer, 131 State St., Boston. Mass. TIMOTHY W. SPRAGUE, HENRY A. WENTWORTH.

Jan 1, 1917

Arizona ROBERT E TALLY, Chairman CARL F MILLS, Secretary-treasurer, P O Box 1462, Jerome, Ariz W. S. BOYD THOMAS H O. O'BRIEN F. W MACLENNAN Boston Meets first Monday each winter month GALEN H. CLEVENCER, Chairman HOLCOMB J BROWN, Vice-chairman F LEROY FOSTER, Secretary-treasurer, Room 8-219, Mass. Inst of Tech, Cambridge, Mass A. E WELLS H A WENTWORTH

Jan 1, 1923

New York Holds monthly meetings, except June, July and August J E SPURR, Chairman A D BROKAW, Vice-chairman SIDNEY ROLLE, Vice-chairman M H MERRISS, Secretary-treasures, Nichols Copper Co, 25 Broad St, New York M F CHASE KARL HOFFMAN Boston Meets first Monday of each winter month C R HAYWARD, Chairman E C GEITHER, Vice-chairman D H McLAUGHLIN, Secretary-treasurer, Rotch Bldg, Harvard Univ Cambridge, Mass GEO H GILMAN GEO A PACKARD

Jan 1, 1923

[Holds monthly meetings, except June, July and August, J JOHN A. CHURCH, JR., Chairman JOSEPH E. POGUE, Vice-chairman SIDNEY ROLLE, Vice-chairman EDWARD C, MEAGHER, Secretary, Texas Gulf Sulphur Co,, 41 E, 42nd St., New York M, H, MERRISS, Treasurer, 42 Broadway, New York ARTHUR NOTMAN T. T, READ Boston Meets first Monday of each winter month. EDWARD C. GEITHER, Chairman WILLIAM S. BLACK, Vice- chairman DONALD H, MCLAUGHLIN, Secretary, treasurer, Rotch Bldg,, Harvard Univ,, Cambridge, Mass. J, L. GILLISON A. G, WAITE]

Jan 1, 1928

[ARIZONA Established July 10, 1915 CHARLES R. KUZELL, Chairman GILBERT C. DAVIS, First Vice-Chairman ALBERT MENDELSOHN, Second Vice-Chairman MORRIS G. FOWLER, Secretary-Treasurer Phelps Dodge Corporation, Douglas, Ariz. LYLE M. BARKER P. D. I. HONEYMAN A. T. BARR H. M. LAVENDER T. G. CHAPMAN WALTER C. LAWSON GEORGE M. COLVOCORESSES W. H. LOERPABEL EDWIN H. CRABTREE, JR. CARL F. MILLS WALTER I. GARMS P. M. MOSIER WESLEY P. Goss J. A. RICHARDS 11. C. HENRIE JOSEPH A. WILCOX C. F. WILLIS]

Jan 1, 1946

Jan 1, 1929

"INTRODUCTIONThe information compiled in this volume initially formed the response by the Generic Mineral Technology Center for -Respirable Dust (GTCRD) to a review of its research and technology transfer programs performed in 1990 by the Advisory Committee on Mining and Mineral Resources Research. This review for each mineral technology research center is accomplished, as required of the Bureau of Mines by the House/Senate Joint Conference Committee, through site visitation to the research institutions of the GTCRD and an in-depth questionnaire. The information provided by that questionnaire becomes an important factor in their recommendations concerning future directions of the program.The site visitations took place during January and February 1991 at the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center~ The Pennsylvania State University, West Virginia University, University of Minnesota, and Michigan Technological University, in addition to an in-mine visit conducted at the Loveridge Mine in West Virginia. The questionnaire was prepared and made available to the Advisory Committee and the Research Council for their review at the GTCRD annual project review meeting in Hershey, Pennsylvania, in April 1991.The comprehensive nature of the questionnaire and the scope of the information contained therein make it an excellent retrospective of the Center. Having a clear vision of where the Center has been and knowing where it is now helps to guide it into the future. It is believed that such a detailed view of the Center's facilities and research program will be of value to Center personnel and Advisory Committee members. Each aspect of the questionnaire was examined, answered in detail and documented thoroughly. With the completed questionnaire as a guide, this review of the Center's activities provides an update to Respirable Dust Center Research Program Review 1988, published in 1989 as the seventh of the Generic Mineral Technology Center for Respirable Dust volumes. As does that volume, this review presents the complete General Mineral Technology Center questionnaire, with the GTCRD's expanded responses and supporting documentation appended. An examination of the research program, Center personnel currently active on GMTC projects, the number of graduate degrees granted with GMTC supports GMTC publications, the degree of individual interaction, technology transfer activities, the reference center, GMTC equipment and facilities, and envisioned plans for future research directions provides updated information in these areas. In addition, this year, information has been included to demonstrate the interaction between the Center's goals and its research projects, with thorough consideration of actual research needs as specified by the National Academy of Sciences. This volume serves as a review of the years 1989 through 1990, the sixth and seventh years of the Center's operation."

Jan 1, 1990

By Michael D. Balen

During the years 1987 through 1989, the Bureau of Mines Alaska Field Operations Center (Bureau) in cooperation with the Western Field Operations Center and the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (ADGGS), conducted mining, geological, and geochemical investigations in the 5.7 million-acre Valdez Creek Mining District (VCMD). This investigation was conducted as part of the Bureau's continuing Mineral Land Assessment (MLA) mining district studies program. The Bureau's MLA program is designed to provide reliable and comprehensive mineral resource information that supports mineral resource policy and land use decisions made by Congress and Federal land management agencies. The information also provides the basis for decisions that would expand the domestic supply of important mineral resources, primarily strategic and critical minerals. Much of the MLA work is done jointly with cooperating State or U.S. geological surveys.

Jan 1, 1992

By Robert B. Parsons

"The Canadian tax treatment of mining operations outside Canada is not as attractive as the treatment of Canadian operations. Further, the Canadian company that invests abroad a host of complex rules. This month, Tax Notes examines some of the major Canadian tax considerations confronting the Canadian company that wants to invest abroad. IntroductionCanadian-based mining companies are investing abroad more than ever before. These foreign investments trigger a complex set of tax rules that are distinct from the rules that apply to Canadian investments. In most cases, careful tax planning is mandatory if the company's tax liabilities are to be minimized. This article summarizes the main tax considerations that need to be taken into account with respect to a mining investment outside Canada.Branch Versus SubsidiaryOne of the first questions that arises in connection with a prospective foreign investment is ""Should we invest directly (that is, in a branch operation), or should we invest through a foreign subsidiary?"". In the case of a branch operation, the Canadian company owns and operates the business directly - that is, the foreign business assets are part of the Canadian legal entity. In the case of a foreign subsidiary, the foreign business operation is owned and managed by that subsidiary. The tax treatment of a branch and a subsidiary can be quite different."

Jan 1, 1994

By A Valero, G M. Mudd

There is active debate and research around the most suitable indicators to assess the sustainability of mining. The most common approach is to report a range of data for a given mine site (or less preferably, a company total), such as inputs, outputs, benefits and potential costs. The most popular protocol in use (and growing rapidly) is the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). However, these measures are numerous and still do not allow a single over-arching indicator to be developed. Other measures, such as known mineral resources over time, do not account for critical challenges such as declining ore grades, increasing wastes and poorer quality ores or more difficult mineralogy. By adopting a thermodynamic approach to sustainability, through the concept of æexergyÆ, it is possible to incorporate into a single measure the effective quality of mineral resources. Exergy involves the assessment of the minimum energy costs involved in producing a mineral resource with a specific chemical composition and concentration from common materials in the environment. The exergy of a mineral resource is evaluated from mineralogic composition, concentration (or ore grade) and, of course, quantity, by multiplying the unit exergies with the tonnes of the resource produced (or consumed). Since exergy is a thermodynamic quantity (ie energy or joules), it is additive across different minerals, such as iron ore to gold to copper or even oil and gas or coal û making it an ideal indicator to assess mineral resource sustainability at the industry scale rather than the individual mine scale. This paper briefly outlines the theoretical basis for exergy, and then presents a range of commodity case studies showing the application of exergy to the Australian mining industry. Overall, the usefulness of exergy is clearly demonstrated for use as a broad indicator of the sustainability of mineral resources at the national or even global scale.

Jan 1, 2009