524 vues

Transféré par rannscribd

- Swedge Manual
- [Rock Mechanics] [Geotecnia] SMR Geomechanics Classification - ISRM 2003 - South Africa
- RMR
- PORE WATER PRESSURE BY ROCSCIENCE
- Engineering Rock Mass Classifications
- Rock mass classification
- Romana Slope Mass Rating.pdf
- NUMERICAL MODELLING OF SURFACE SUBSIDENCE ASSOCIATED WITH BLOCK CAVE MINING USING A FINITE ELEMENT / DISCRETE ELEMENT APPROACH
- Empirical rock slope design
- Rock Slope Design Guide
- Rock Slope Stability and Excavatability
- Rock Slope Stability Analysis
- 'AEL Mining Services' Product Catalogue
- Rock Slope Stability Analysis, P Giani, 1992
- Unwedge Scaling
- Geotechnical Manual for Slopes
- Tunnel Design
- Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction_2
- Typical Soil Values
- Micromine Mine Planning Training Draft

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

By C M ORR

1

, Member

ABSTRACT

The Rock Mass Rating (RMR) and Rock Mass Strength (RMS)

classification systems for jointed rock masses are briefly reviewed, with

particular reference to their use in slope stability studies. A correlation is

provided between the results obtained from the two classifications and an

equation is presented tentatively defining the RMR value for long-term

stable slope angles. The validity of the equation is discussed in general

terms in the context of slope stability problems commonly encountered in

Western Australian open pit gold mines.

KEYWORDS: open pits, rock mass classifications, slope angles, slope

stability, swelling clays.

INTRODUCTION

The Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system, also known as the

Geomechanics Classification, was developed in 1973 as a means of

assessing permanent rock support requirements for underground

excavations (Bieniawski, 1973). Initially applied to civil

engineering projects (tunnels and underground caverns),

modifications to the original classification resulted in it being used

for mining applications, rippability studies, dam foundations and

slope stability (Bieniawski, 1988).

A similar rock mass classification, based on the RMR System

concept and known as the Rock Mass Strength (RMS) system, was

developed by geomorphologists and used to correlate 'rock

strength' with stable slope angles of natural rock outcrops (Selby,

1980; Moon and Selby, 1983). This classification, although

apparently less well-known than its engineering contemporary, has

obvious applications to rock slope stability studies associated with

mining and civil engineering projects.

The purpose of this paper is fourfold, namely to

1. briefly summarise the RMR and RMS systems and their use in

slope stability studies,

2. correlate results from the RMR and RMS systems,

3. provide an equation that tentatively defines the relationship

between stable slope angles in jointed rock and RMR system

values, and

4. discuss, in general terms, the validity of using the RMR versus

slope angle relationship in the context of slope stability

problems commonly encountered in Western Australian open

pit gold mines.

THE ROCK MASS RATING (RMR) SYSTEM

A comprehensive description of the RMR system and its

application to engineering projects has recently been published by

Bieniawski (1988).

The RMR system classifies jointed rock masses using the

following six parameters.

1. uniaxial compressive strength ofrock material

2. rock quality designation (RQD)

3. spacing of discontinuities

4. condition of discontinuities

5. groundwater conditions

6. orientation of discontinuities.

Ratings are allotted to each of the above parameters, depending

on their actual measured values. The first five ratings are summed

to yield a basic rock mass rating. Adjustments are subsequently

made to the basic rating for the influence of discontinuity

orientations to give a final (adjusted) rock mass rating (RMR)

value. This ranges from 0 to 100 with high RMR values indicating

better rock mass conditions. Five rock mass classes are

distinguished on the basis of the final rock mass ratings (Table 1).

TABLE 1

Rock mass classes determined/rom total ratings

(after Bieniawski (1988).

RMR Value Class Description

<20 V Very poor rock

21 - 40 IV Poor rock

41 -60 III Fair rock

61 - 80 II Good rock

>80 I Very good rock

Output from the classification is in the form of average stand-up

time for unsupported tunnel roof spans and cohesion and friction

angles for the rock mass.

Slope stability applications

TABLE 2

Pit wall angles versus RMR class (after Laubscher, 1975).

The first published application of the RMR system to slope stability

was by Laubscher (1975) who used adjusted rock mass classes to

provide an experience-based guide to slope angles applicable to

open pit mining. Laubscher's proposed relationship is given in

Table 2.

1.

2.

3.

Principal, George, Orr and Associates; Associate, James Askew

Associates (pty) Ltd (Australia).

Chris Orr was born in Zimbabwe and graduated from the University

of Natal, South Africa in 1973 with a MSc degree in Geology. He

worked with the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, the

Geological Survey and as consulting engineering geologist in South

Africa, before emigrating to Australia in 1986. He is the

author/co-author of 14 publications dealing with various aspects of

engineering geology, slope stability and rock mechanics.

Original manuscript received September 1991.

Revised manuscript received March 1992.

Adjusted Class 1

Pit Wall Angle (0) 75

2

65

3

55

4

45

5

35

The AusIMMProceedings No21992 25

CMORR

Steffen (1976) used the average values of rock mass cohesion

and friction angle, derived from the RMR system, to determine the

stability of 35 slopes (of which 20 had failed) with respect to

circular failure. Results were largely inconclusive, although some

statistical trend was found between factors of safety (FOS) and

incidences of failure. FOS values of up to 1.2 existed for failed

slopes while some apparently stable slopes exhibited FOS values of

0.7. Despite this, the general RMR classification approach was

described as being useful as a preliminary investigative tool for

slope stability studies.

Hall (1985) described a graphical correlation between RMR

values and slope angles in jointed rock masses. It was used to

estimate stable slope angles for railway cuttings in South Africa.

The correlation was provided for slope heights of less than 20 m,

excavated within rock masses of RMR 20 ie, poor quality or

better. A recommended design line was provided, the equation for

which has subsequently been calculated as

Slope angle = 0.65 RMR + 25 .... (1).

for slope height < 20 m, and RMR 20.

More recent applications of the RMR system have involved

forecasting typical stability problems and determining potential

slope support measures (Romana, 1985 and 1988). The original

RMR system was modified, taking into account the influence of

excavation methods on slope stability and providing a more

detailed description of joint favourability with respect to potential

instability. A similar approach was described by Singh, Elmherig

and Sunu (1986) in assessing the slope stability of two granite

quarries.

Robertson (1988), using a modified RMR system. showed that

when the RMR exceeds 40, slope stability is determined by the

orientation of and strength along discontinuities. Where the rating

is less than 30, slope failure may occur through the rock mass at

any joint orientation.

Figure 1 summarises the existing RMR versus slope angle

relationships proposed by various authors.

THE ROCK MASS STRENGTH (RMS) CLASSIFICATION

A Rock Mass Strength (RMS) classification was developed by

Selby in 1980 and used by geomorphologists to explain the

relationship between 'rock mass strength' and the long-term stable

slope angles of natural rock outcrops (Selby, 1980; Selby, 1982;

Moon and Selby, 1983; Selby, 1987).

The RMS classification uses similar (but not identical) input

parameters to the RMR system.

1. strength of intact rock

2. state of rock weathering

DESCRIPTION

VERY BAD:

SOIL-LIKE

FAILURES

BAD: PLANAR

OR BIG WEDGE

FAILURES

PARTIALLY

STABLE: SOME STABLE: SOME

BLOCK FAILURES

VERY GOOD:

COMPLETELY

STABLE

1----

__J

LAUBSCHER{1975}

2 HALL (1985)

3 ROMANA{1988}

RMR +25

70 SLOPES oc20m HIGH}

60

en

u.i

50

...J

CJ

Z

cC

w 40

(f) L

0 ------

...J

en

30

20

10

80

90---,---------------------------/

RMR 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

ROCK

CLASS

CLASS V: VERY

POOR ROCK

CLASS IV:

POOR ROCK

CLASS Ill:

FAIR ROCK

CLASS 11:

GOOD ROCK

CLASS I: VERY

GOOD ROCK

FIG 1 - Summary of existing RMR versus slope angle relationships.

26

No21992

The AusIMMProceedings

3. joint spacing

4. joint width (aperture)

5. orientations of joints with respect to the slope

6. joint continuity

7. outflow of groundwater.

Each of the parameters are assigned ratings which are then

summed to provide the rock mass strength (RMS).

Correlations are provided between RMS values and natural slope

angles. These were measured from long slope profiles. of up to

several hundred metres in height, developed on a variety of

igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rock outcrops in Antarctica,

New Zealand, South Africa and Namibia. Rock outcrops were

jointed. unbuttressed and lacked major continuous defects which

were critical for slope stability.

A straight line equation (with a correlation co-efficient of 0.88).

linking RMS and slope angle (S). was proposed for the Antarctic

and New Zealand examples (Selby. 1980):

RMS = 49 + 0.42S ...... (2)

Selby (1980) claims that by using equation (2), the inclination of

a slope can be estimated from the RMS value with a standard error

of 5.1.

South African and Namibian examples (Moon and Selby. 1983)

were presented in a graphical form which also showed a straight

line correlation between RMS and slope angle (S). An equation for

this correlation was not presented in the original paper but

examination of the graph shows it to be identical to equation (2).

APPLICABILITY OF THE RMR SYSTEM AND THE RMS

CLASSIFICATIO TO SLOPE STA8ILITY STUDIES

Although the RMR System is arguably the most well known and

applied method of classifying rock masses for engineering

purposes, it has a number of shortcomings. particularly when it is

applied outside the area of tunnel support design, for which it was

originally intended. These include its lack of sensitivity to changes

in the classification parameters and its predilection for the central

(fair rock) class. (Kirsten. 1988); overemphasis of the intact rock

strength rating given to the classification. (Kirsten. 1988; Hall,

1985); and the lack of emphasis given to rock joint shear strengths

and groundwater conditions, considering their importance to rock

slope stability (Hall, 1985).

Two additional criticisms that may be added are

1. the lack of correlation between RMR values. slope angle and

slope height. The latter two variables are linked and are of

fundamental importance in any attempt to correlate rock

quality with stable slope angles. and

2. the influence of time upon the stability of rock slopes is

ignored. Vanarsdale. Costello and Marcelletti (1989) show, for

example, that a progressive decrease in pit wall angles over a

time span of ten to 30 years occurred in coal-bearing strata in

the USA. Other examples undoubtedly exist but are not well

reported in the literature.

Although a number of the above criticisms may also be

applicable to the RMS classification, the published data (Selby.

1980) relates rock mass strength to slopes of varying heights

exposed over periods of geological time (ie. slopes which may be

regarded, in the engineering sense, as being in a state of limiting

equilibrium). The RMS classification is therefore extremely

valuable in predicting long-term stable slope angles. It can also be

used to provide a tentative correlation with the more widely known.

engineering-oriented, RMR classification and hence a relationship

between RMR values and long-term stable slope angles for jointed

rock.

Correlation between RMS and RMR classifications

RMS data published by Selby (1980) have been re-analysed and

described in the form of the RMR system (using the 1988 version

ASSESSMENT OF ROCK SLOPE STABILITY USING THE RMR SYSTEM

100

90

.....

Cl)

Cl)

80 Ol

~

:i

70

III

~

III

C

eo

Ql

iD

RMR 6 2.2 RMS-130

....

50

' 6 0.88

Cl

~

.....

40

<

a:

Cl)

30 Cl)

<

::lE

:le:

20

()

0

10 a:

0+-,--,--.------r---,----+-,--,--.-----1

o 10 20 30 40 50 eo 70 80 90 100

ROCK MASS STRENGTH (Selby. 1980)

FIG 2 - RMR versus RMS correlation.

of the latter by Bieniawski (1988. Some scaller occurs (Figure 2)

but the general relationship for 15 data sets was found to be

RMR = 2.2 RMS - 130 ...... (3)

with a correlation co-efficient of 0.88.

Prediction of stable slope angles from RMR values

Figure 3 shows a compilation of RMR values (derived using

equation (3 and slope angle data obtained from the information

published by Selby (1980) and Moon and Selby (1983). Slope

heights have been arbitrarily subdivided into the range: less than 10

m. 10 - 20 m. 20 - 40 m and greater than 40 m. RMR versus slope

angle relationships for nine failed slopes less than 20 m high.

extracted from Hall (1985). are also shown.

The graph shows that

1. the general RMR versus slope angle relationship is non-linear.

2. no data are available for slopes with an RMR of less than 20 or

greater than 77.

3. a lower-bound equation filled to the data gives a relationship

between slope angle (S) and RMR value of

S = 35 In (RMR) - 71 ..... (4)

This relationship is proposed as the limit of long-term stability

that can realistically be expected for slopes up to 50 m high

and exhibiting RMR values of between 20 and 77 (ie, poor to

good rock). It must be stressed that the data are only

applicable to southern African. New Zealand and Antarctic

examples. A separate study in Australia is needed to verify the

relationship under local conditions and to establish the

relationship between RMR and stable slope angles for

short-time periods, ie open pit operational life spans as

opposed to geological time. and

4. the limited data and their scatter preludes meaningful analysis.

at this stage, for relationships between slope angle and slope

height for rock masses of similar quality.

Although equation (4) gives the impression that steep stable

slopes can be formed in jointed rock masses of mediocre quality, it

must be stressed that RMR values in excess of 40 cannot be

The AuslMM Proceedings No21992 27

CMORR

ROCK QUALITY (Blenlawskl, 1988)

GOOD FAIR POOR VERY POOR

90

A

_ _ ? LIMIT OF LONG-TERM

80

STABILITY?

0

70

A

0

60

SLOPE ANGLE =35In(RMR}-71

w

for RMR 20-80

-J

C'

50

z

4(

w

40

A FAILED SLOPES <20m HIGH (Hall, 1985)

D.

0

0

.. tOm HIGH }

-J

10-20 HIGH NA TURAL SLOPES et)

30 I

li.

m (Selby, 1980;

I x

20-40m HIGH Moon cl Selby, 1983)

20

?

40-50m HIGH

10

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

ROCK MASS RATING (RMR)

FIG 3 - RMR versus slope angle relationship.

achieved when very unfavourable Jomtmg (from a stability

viewpoint) occurs in even the highest quality rock mass. This

situation arises as a consequence of a rating adjustment of -60 being

applicable for 'very unfavourable' joint orientations (Bieniawski,

1988). Very unfavourable joint orientations must be analysed as

specific cases.

Excavation methods also significantly influence the stability of

artificially formed slopes (Romana, 1988) and this aspect should

always be considered when assessing realistic wall angles.

EXPERIENCE FROM OPEN PITS IN WESTERN

AUSTRALIA

Common slope stability problems encountered in Western

Australian open pit gold mines have been described by Rosengren

and Swindells (1988), Swindells (1990) and Orr, Swindells and

Windsor (1991). Based on data in these publications and the

author's experience, the applicability of using the RMR versus

slope angle relationship (equation (4 for estimating stable pit

slope angles is discussed below.

In very general terms, the geology exposed in typical WA gold

mine pits may be subdivided into three broad categories.

I. a surface lateritised (caprock) layer, commonly extending to

depths of 2 to 5 m and occasionally 8 m

2. an intermediate layer of weathered rock (saprolite), extending

to depths of up to 80 m

3. a lowermost layer of fresh (unweathered) rock

The uppermostlateritised layers exhibit RMR values in the range

45 - 70 (fair to good rock). Stable slope angles of 65 to 75 are

commonly achieved over the life of a typical open pit (one to five

years). Failures within this layer are rare and only normally occur

as a result of undercutting, following slope failures within the

underlying weathered rock.

The intermediate weathered rock layer, commonly referred to as

'oxidised rock' or 'saprolite', generally exhibits structurally

controlled instability in the form of planar, wedge or toppling

failures along relict joints. The high degree of rock weathering and

closely jointed nature of the material, often combined with adverse

joint orientations, invariably give rise to very poor to poor rock

conditions (RMR ~ 20 to 40). Stable overall slope angles above

45 are seldom achieved in pit walls with lives greater then one to

two years, although steeper slopes are commonly cut for mining

operations. Increased pore water pressures, following heavy

rainfall or abandonment of pit dewatering procedures, are attributed

to as being the cause of most failures.

Instances also occur where wall instability is exacerbated by the

presence of swelling clay minerals, developed by weathering and/or

alteration processes of the original tuff, basalt or amphibolite rock.

These clays, which occur within the rock material and also as a

joint infill, swell and shrink with varying moisture regimes, giving

rise to loosening of joint-bounded blocks of rock within the slopes.

This loosening is often the precursor to progressive (ravelling type)

slope failures. An example of this ravelling process, recorded from

a 35 m high slope excavated within an apparently fresh dolerite

containing swelling clays, is described by Orr (1979). Slopes

excavated in rocks containing swelling clays should be regarded

--

28 N021992 The AuslMM Proceedings

with caution, and their stability, both in the long- and short-tenn,

cannot adequately be predicted by classification methods.

Depending on the inclination of rock jointing and its effect on

wall stability, fresh rock commonly exhibits RMR values of

between 40 and 60. A moderate to steeply dipping, pronounced

rock foliation, is common. Most slope instabilities occur as planar

failures in the footwall slope (where foliation is undercut) or

toppling failures in the hangingwall. Stable slopes with overall wall

angles of 55 to 60 are generally achieved. Reinforcement, in the

form of cable bolting, has often been used to increase stability of

steeper slopes.

The above general examples are in broad agreement with the

RMR versus slope angle relationship given in equation (4), and

demonstrate its usefulness in providing a first approximation of

stable slope angles for slopes up to 50 m high.

CONCLUSIONS

Using published data, a tentative correlation has been made

between the results of the RMR system (a relatively simple and

well known rock classification used primarily in underground

engineering practice) and the RMS classification (a similar

classification used for geomorphological studies).

The relationship between stable long-tenn slope angles and RMR

values, derived from the original RMS classification database, is

non-linear. The limited data available exhibit a degree of scatter

that precludes it being used at this stage for meaningful analysis of

the influence of slope height on the stability of various quality rock

masses. This situation should improve as more data become

available.

Some typical general examples of the applicability of the RMR

system to slope stability assessments carried out in Western

Australian open pit gold mines demonstrate that the overall concept

is realistic. However, considerably more field examples are

required to improve current knowledge on the effect of time on

slope stability and the relationship between slope height, slope

angle and rock quality. It is hoped that additional study and the

collection and correlation of additional data by other workers will

improve the correlation described in this paper.

It is considered that the RMR versus slope angle relationship

described here is useful in providing a first approximation of

stable long-tenn slope angles that can be excavated within jointed

rock masses for slopes up to 50 m high. In common with most

classification approaches however, it should not be used solely for

detailed design purposes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The interest shown and advice provided by Messrs C Windsor,

Senior Rock Mechanics Engineer, Rock Mechanics Research

Centre, CSIRO, Perth and M Lee, Principal Geotechnical Engineer,

James Askew Associates Pty Ltd, Melbourne is acknowledged.

ASSESSMENT OF ROCK SLOPE STABILITY USING THE RMR SYSTEM

REFERENCES

Bieniawski, Z. T., 1973. Engineering classification of jointed rock masses.

Trans. S. Afr.lnst. Civ. Engrs., 15:335-344.

Bieniawski, Z. T., 1988. The Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system

(Geomechanics Classification) in engineering practice, in Rock

Classification Systems for Engineering Purposes, (Ed. L Kirkaldie), pp

17-34, Publication SPT 984 (ASTM: Philadelphia).

Hall, B. E., 1985. Preliminary estimation of slope angles, in Symposium on

Rock Mass Characteristics. pp 120-121 (South African National Group

on Rock Mechanics: Johannesburg).

Kirsten, H., 1988. Discussion to 'Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system

(Geomechanics classification) in engieering practice' by Z T Bieniawski,

in Rock Classification Systems for Engineering Purposes, (Ed. L

Kirkaldie). p 32, Publication SPT 984, ( ASTM: Philadelphia).

Laubscher, D. H., 1975. Class distinction in rock masses. Coal, Gold and

Base Minerals ofSouthern Africa, pp 37-50.

Moon, B. P. and Selby, M. J., 1983. Rock Mass Strength and scarp forms in

Southern Africa. GeograflSika Annaler. Ser.A, 65:135-145.

Orr, C. M., 1979. Rapid weathering dolerites. Trans. S. Afr. Inst. Civ.

Engrs., Vo121, No 7:161-167.

Orr, C. M., Swindells, C. E and Windsor, C. R., 1991. Open pit toppling

failures experience versus analysis. Proceedings of 7th International

Conference on Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (Eds.

Beer, Boorker and Carter), pp 505-510 (Balkema: Rotterdam).

Robertson, A. M., 1988. Estimating weak rock strength, in AlME - SME

Annual Meeting, Phoenix, Az, 1988, preprint No 88-145 (AIME-SME:

Romana, M., 1985. New adjustment ratings for application of Bieniawski

classification to slopes. Int. Symp. on the Role of Rock Mechanics,

Zacatecas, Mexico, pp 49-53.

Romana, M., 1988. Practice of SMR classification for slope appraisal.

?roe. 5thlnt. Symp. on Landslides, Lausanne, pp 1227-1231.

Rosengren, K. J. and Swindells, C. E, 1988. Slope stability in open pit gold

mines. Conf on R&Dfor the Minerals Industry, pp 122-127. (WA School

of Mines: Kalgoorlie).

Selby, M. J., 1980. A rock mass strength classification for geomorphic

purposes: with tests from Antarctica and New Zealand. Z. Geomorph. N

F, Vol24,No 1:31-51.

Selby, M. J., 1982. Controls on the stability and inclinations of hillslopes

formed on hard rock. Earth Surface Processes and Lanciforms,

7:449-467.

Selby, M. J., 1987. Rock slopes in Slope Stability, (Eds M G Anderson and

K S Richards), pp 475-504 (John Wiley: New York).

Singh, R. N., Elmherif, A. M. and Sunu, M. Z., 1986. Application of rock

mass characterisation to the stability assessment and blast design in hard

rock surface mining excavations in 27th US Symposium on Rock

Mechanics, pp 471-478 (University of Alabama).

Steffen, O. K. H., 1976. Research and development needs in data collecting

for rock engineering. Proc. Symp. on Exploration for Rock Engineering,

Johannesburg, pp 93-104 (A A Balkema: The Netherlands).

Swindells, C. E, 1990. Geotechnical studies for open pit mines: West

Australian operating experience. Proc. Mine Geologists Cont, Mt Isa, pp

167-170 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:

Melbourne).

Vanarsdale, R., Costello, P. and Marcelletti, N., 1990. Denudation of

Highwalls near Manchester, Kentucky. Eng. Geol., 26:112-123.

The AusIMM Proceedings N021992 29

- Swedge ManualTransféré parMauricio Santisteban Campos Robles
- [Rock Mechanics] [Geotecnia] SMR Geomechanics Classification - ISRM 2003 - South AfricaTransféré parGuillermo Andres Soto Conde
- RMRTransféré pargrsadowski
- PORE WATER PRESSURE BY ROCSCIENCETransféré parLekhani Dasanayake
- Engineering Rock Mass ClassificationsTransféré parManjula Urapola
- Rock mass classificationTransféré parAze
- Romana Slope Mass Rating.pdfTransféré parzzza
- NUMERICAL MODELLING OF SURFACE SUBSIDENCE ASSOCIATED WITH BLOCK CAVE MINING USING A FINITE ELEMENT / DISCRETE ELEMENT APPROACHTransféré parAlex
- Empirical rock slope designTransféré parBrian Conner
- Rock Slope Design GuideTransféré parLeonardo Rojas
- Rock Slope Stability and ExcavatabilityTransféré parGAUCHEX697355
- Rock Slope Stability AnalysisTransféré parMilan Popovic
- 'AEL Mining Services' Product CatalogueTransféré parzix013
- Rock Slope Stability Analysis, P Giani, 1992Transféré parLeonardo Rojas
- Unwedge ScalingTransféré parMiguel Madariaga
- Geotechnical Manual for SlopesTransféré parMarcel Toruño Mendez
- Tunnel DesignTransféré parcosmin05
- Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction_2Transféré parMarkusMakuAldo
- Typical Soil ValuesTransféré parshachen2014
- Micromine Mine Planning Training DraftTransféré parAir
- Rock MechanicsTransféré parYashwanth Kumar
- Fhwa - Hoek Y Bray - Rock Slopes EngineeringTransféré parwaberoya2009
- Rock Slope EngineeringTransféré parPeter Jean-jacques
- Open Pit Slope Design 2009.pdfTransféré parEnrique Cruz Checco
- RQD Time to Rest in Peace - BieniawskiTransféré parrenos73
- Methods for Underground Mining Atlas CopcoTransféré parandrijapopovic
- Rock Mechanics Lecture MaterialTransféré parKarthik
- Abutment Lateral Movement and Pile Member Force CheckTransféré parsaidrojas

- Velocity EquipmentTransféré parrannscribd
- 35_NL_Web3Transféré parrannscribd
- A Methodology to Determine in Situ Rock Mass FailureTransféré parrannscribd
- TunelTransféré parrannscribd
- JAL-AnkorTransféré parrannscribd
- Chapter 2. Protected AreasTransféré parrannscribd
- Pit to Plant - Current TrendsTransféré parrannscribd
- UNI 1a Clase_ Inovaciones TecnologicasTransféré pardiego_ca63
- Cuencas en Colision ContinentalTransféré parrannscribd
- Mechanized Excavability Rating for Hard-rock MiningTransféré parrannscribd
- DSG-El Heroe CotidianoTransféré parRodrigo Cochochus
- Mining Practices and Their Effect on Mobile Equipment CostsTransféré parrannscribd
- Two-Point Estimates in ProbabilitiesTransféré parrannscribd
- Determination and IT Supported Evaluation of Rock Mechanical Parameters and Thir Utilization During Application of Roof Bolting TechniquesTransféré parrannscribd
- Tutorial Executing Tools in ModelbuilderTransféré parGisMaster Nikelson
- TT-193 FinalTransféré parrannscribd
- 1ho-3.-modulo modelo de bloques y estimación de recursos y reservas recmin + sgems - solmine.Transféré parrannscribd
- Inv de OperacionesTransféré parMirna Brito
- Chapter 10 Slope StabilityTransféré parhare krishna
- Die Goes Tab Ta LudesTransféré parrannscribd
- Erich NeugebauerTransféré parrannscribd
- 69-TESIS.IP011.S83Transféré parrannscribd
- TT 196 FinalTransféré parThomas Lawson
- Modelo Geotecnico Mercedes Criterios de DisenoTransféré parrannscribd
- Caracterización a06v13n26[1]Transféré parFavio Quevedo
- TT-190 FinalTransféré parrannscribd
- TT-190 FinalTransféré parrannscribd
- TT-191 FinalTransféré parrannscribd
- Curso ISO 14001-2004Transféré parFuentes Chris
- 00_IndiceTransféré parflo696869

- Ene325 Assignment 1 2017Transféré parAnonymous KihSdniPQ6
- Heat Transfer and Thermal Radiation ModellingTransféré parandrecruzbe
- 16508119-SIAPTransféré parThomson Tan
- CJ2.pdfTransféré parZeljko Vojnic Tunic
- Braced FramesTransféré parjohnsmith1980
- Microsoft PowerPoint - HVAC FINAL.ppt[1]Transféré pararavoof84
- 02 Introduction to ABAP Programming Student VersionTransféré parGourav Jena
- 06_environmentalDataAndArcGISTransféré parsyakira
- en_ROUTE_v7_Ch05.pptxTransféré parDaphne Paucar Moreyra
- Exploratory WellTransféré parEnergy Tomorrow
- KXR100Transféré parTom Genute
- Dessler Hrm12 Tif01Transféré parSyed Muhammad Haris Hayat
- System Engineering DATTransféré parlarache09
- Design of Vapor-Compression Refrigeration CyclesTransféré parcepong89
- De Valk Yachtbrokers Mcvbvcby Sila Inua (350879) FullTransféré parhell_sing_Z
- A Tribute to Geoffrey Bawa (2003).pdfTransféré parmishimayukio
- 2PAA106187-510 en System 800xA 5.1 Release Notes Fixed ProblemsTransféré parzkatic
- wps asme sec 9.pdfTransféré parThasarathan Ravichandran
- 3db20024baaaics01_v1_9500 Mpr Quick Start GuideTransféré parMagno Sousa Nogueira
- BIS0148 - C2L9P2 - Spec Sheet - Wear 450 Steel_webTransféré paridontlikeebooks
- Improvement of Labour Productivity in Construction Industry- ReviewTransféré parIRJET Journal
- Lunar Lander and Return Propulsion System Trade StudyTransféré parjakub_gramol
- Flight Mechanics - Part 2Transféré parMuhamad Shafiq
- ReportTransféré parbre
- SpecsTransféré parianiroy13
- XppD ASM InstanceTransféré parRaffaella D'angelo
- Standard Practice for Optimization, Calibration, and Validation of Atomic Absorption Spectrometry for Metal Analysis of Petroleum Products and Lubricants1Transféré parcamilo
- Pmbok6th 0 OverviewTransféré parEric Thorania Khan
- AbstractTransféré parAkshay
- VIO55-5B Parts Catalog(Body).pdfTransféré parsurianto