EFFECT OF WEATHERING AND ALTERATION ON POINT LOAD AND

advertisement
EFFECT OF WEATHERING AND ALTERATION ON POINT LOAD AND
SLAKE DURABILITY INDICES AND THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE
DEBRIS FLOW AT THE QUESTA MINE, TAOS COUNTY, NEW MEXICO
by
Gertrude Fobiah Ayakwah
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of Master of Science in Mineral Engineering
with Specialization in Geotechnical Engineering
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
Department of Mineral Engineering
Socorro, New Mexico
May, 2009
This thesis is dedicated to God almighty for seeing me through, to my Mum Agnes Adjeley
Fumey, my dad Emmanuel Okyere-Boakye Ayakwah and my siblings for their prayers and
support during the writing of this work.
ii
Abstract
Point load strength (Is50) and slake durability (ID2) indices provide a measure of the
strength and durability of rock fragments. These are also related to the alteration intensity
and weathering of the materials. Samples were collected from the rock piles, alteration
scars, and debris flows at the Questa mine with the purpose of examining relationships
between Is50 and ID2, mineralogy, chemistry, weathering, hydrothermal alteration, and
other geotechnical parameters. The Is50 from the various rock piles ranges from 0.6-8.2
MPa and the ID2 ranges from 80.9-99.5%. The Is50 and ID2 results from the samples
collected indicate that, the samples from the debris flows are in average stronger (average
Is50= 4.0 MPa and ID2= 98.4%) than the rock-pile samples and that the alteration scar
samples are in average weaker (average Is50 = 2.8 MPa and ID2 = 89.2%) than the rockpile samples. However, most of these rocks are strong in terms of their Is50 and ID2.
The debris flows studied are similar to the Questa rock piles in terms of lithology,
slake and point load indices, friction angle and particle size distribution. The profile
studied is not a typical weathered profile. This is because it was observed that there are
no systematic variations in the composition of the samples collected from the profile, and
this indicates that the debris flow was formed by several different flood events with
slightly different sources. The results of the geochemical and geotechnical
characterization indicate that, the samples collected from the debris flow are similar to
each other and do not show signs of decreasing weathering from the top of the profile to
the bottom. The cementation of the debris flow was found to be similar to the ones found
in the rock piles and is formed by oxidation of sulfide minerals producing sulfates and
iron oxides. The debris flows are therefore well cemented, even below the surface.
Finally, the slake durability measurements of rock pile material collected from the hot
zones were found to be similar to the measurements obtained for other materials in the
Questa area. They also indicated high durability.
ii
Acknowledgements
This study owes its success to several people who contributed in various ways. However,
some key personalities require special mention.
My heartfelt gratitude goes to my research supervisors; Dr. Virginia McLemore
and Dr. Ali Fakhimi, for their encouragement, guidance and constructive criticisms which
enabled me to produce this research work on time.
I also thank Chevron Mining Inc. for funding this research work.
I wish to also than the Questa Rock Pile Weathering Stability Project team for
their assistance throughout the sampling and data analysis period of this project.
To Dave Jacobs of Chevron Mining Inc, Ariel Dickens, Kojo Anim, Frederick
Ennin, Samuel Nunoo, Dawn Sweeney, Kelly Donahue and Erin Philips, I say a big thank
you for your help in the laboratory work and data analysis of this work.
I express my profound gratitude to Dr. Navid Mojtabai, my academic advisor who
has been a father and a consular to me since the day I applied for admission to this
honorable institution and also offered a lot of encouragement.
Finally, to Yirrah family in Virginia, Carilli family in Socorro, my aunties Diana,
Edith, Charlotte, Vida in New Jersey for the love, encouragement and their prayers
during hard times in my academic life.
ii
Table of Contents List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix
1.0
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
1.1.
Background ...........................................................................................................1
1.2
Thesis Overview ...................................................................................................2
1.3
Project Background ...............................................................................................3
1.4
Thesis Objective and Scope ..................................................................................4
1.5
Description of study area ......................................................................................5
1.5.1 Location ..........................................................................................................5
1.5.2 History of Questa Mine ...................................................................................6
1.5.3 Mine Features..................................................................................................8
1.5.4. Mine geology and mineralogy ......................................................................12
1.6
Rock mass and intact rock strength ....................................................................17
1.6.1 Rock durability and slaking ..........................................................................18
2.0
EFFECTS OF WEATHERING AND ALTERATION ON POINT LOAD AND
SLAKE DURABILITY INDICES OF QUESTA MINE MATERIALS, NEW
MEXICO…... .................................................................................................................... 22
2.1
Introduction .........................................................................................................22
2.2
Alteration and weathering of the Questa rock piles ............................................24
2.3
Field and Analytical Methods .............................................................................29
2.3.1 Sampling .......................................................................................................29
2.3.2 Laboratory Analysis ......................................................................................30
2.4
Results .................................................................................................................38
2.5
Discussion ...........................................................................................................43
2.6
Conclusions .........................................................................................................55
3.0
CHARACTERIZATION OF QUESTA DEBRIS FLOWS ................................. 57
3.1
Introduction .........................................................................................................57
3.2
Definitions...........................................................................................................58
3.3
Background .........................................................................................................60
3.4
Sampling and analytical methods .......................................................................63
3.5
Description of the debris flow profile .................................................................66
3.6
Results .................................................................................................................68
3.7
Discussion ...........................................................................................................70
3.8
CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................83
4.0
HOT ZONE STRENGTH STUDY ...................................................................... 85
4.1
Introduction .........................................................................................................85
4.2
Background .........................................................................................................86
4.3
Methods...............................................................................................................87
4.4
Results .................................................................................................................88
4.5
Discussion ...........................................................................................................91
4.6
Conclusion ..........................................................................................................94
5.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 96
5.2
References Cited .................................................................................................98
APPENDIX A
TEST RESULTS............................................................................... 105
iii
APPENIDX B. SUMMARY RESULTS OF QUESTA MATERIALS USED IN THE
STUDY. .......................................................................................................................... 125
APPENIDX C. SUMMARY COMPARISM STATISTICS OF THE STRENGTH and
DURABILITYCLASSIFICATION FOR QUESTA MATERIALS. ............................. 197
iv
List of Figures Figure 1.1: Location map of the chevron molybdenum mine and vicinities. ......................6
Figure 1.2: Map of chevron mine site showing mine rock piles and mine features. ...........9
Figure 1.3: Conceptual geological model of GHN rock pile, as interpreted from surface
mapping, detailed geologic cross-sections, trenches, drill holes, construction method and
observations during reclamation of GHN (McLemore et. al., 2008a) ...............................11
Figure 1.4: Geologic map of Questa – Red River Vicinity (Ludington et al., 2004.) .......13
Figure 1.5: Map of the alteration scars at the Questa Mine. The red circles shows where
samples were taken from, for point load and slake durability test.....................................17
Figure 2.1: The point load strength equipment in use (sample under test), showing contact
cones, the loading and measuring systems (display gage) and samples to be tested. ........32
Figure 2.2: Typical irregular samples after point load strength test showing their planes
of failure……….. ...............................................................................................................33
Figure 2.3: slake durability equipment during usage comprising of the test drums and the
motor for rotation. ..............................................................................................................36
Figure 2.4: A typical brushed sample, each piece weighing between 40 to 60 g before the
slake durability test is performed. ......................................................................................36
Figure 2.5: A typical sample after slake durability test showing bigger and smaller pieces
of rock fragments after the test. .........................................................................................37
Figure 2.6: Histogram plot of point load strength index at the rock piles location (GHN,
SSS, SSW, MID and SPR).................................................................................................42
Figure 2.7: Histogram plot of slake durability index at the rock piles location (GHN,
SSS, SSW, MID and SPR).................................................................................................42
Figure 2.8: Scatter plot of Slake Durability Index and Point Load Index vs. distance from
outer edge of GHN rock pile. The weathering intensity was confirmed by petrographic
analyses, especially textures, as described by McLemore et al. (2008a). See Figures 1.2
and1.3 for location of trenches and layers in GHN where samples were obtained.
Appendix B includes a summary of the description of these samples. ..............................44
Figure 2.9: Point load strength index values for the rock piles, alteration scars and debris
flows. The average point load strength index for each location is shown with a red circle.
The number of samples for each location and the standard deviation are shown in
parentheses. PIT samples are unweathered drill core samples of andesite and rhyolite
(Amalia Tuff) of various hydrothermal alteration intensities. See Figure 1.2 for location
of rock piles. See Figures 1.2 and 1.3 for location of trenches and geologic units in GHN
where samples were obtained. Appendix B summarizes the location and description of
these samples. ....................................................................................................................45
Figure 2.10: Slake durability index values for the rock piles, alteration scars, and debris
flows. The average slake durability index for each location is shown with a red circle.
The number of samples and the standard deviation for each location are shown in
parentheses. PIT samples are unweathered drill core samples of andesite and rhyolite
(Amalia Tuff) of various hydrothermal alteration intensities. See Figures 1.2. and 1.3 for
location of rock piles and location of trenches and geologic units in GHN where samples
were obtained. Appendix B summarizes the location and description of these samples. ..46
Figure 2.11: Variation in slake index, point load and alteration (QSP, Propylitic and
Argillic) of the Questa rock materials. See Figure 1.2 for location of rock piles where
v
samples were obtained. Appendix B summarizes the location and description of these
samples……….. .................................................................................................................47
Figure 2.12: Point load strength index values for different lithologies (Amalia, Andesite
and Intrusive) which includes drill core and outcrop samples. The average point load
strength index for each lithology is shown with a red circle. The number of the samples
and the standard deviation are shown in the parentheses. See Figure 1.2 for location of
open pit. Appendix B summarizes the location and description of these samples. ...........48
Figure 2.13: Slake durability index values for different lithologies (Amalia, Andesite and
Intrusive) which include the drill core and outcrop samples. The average slake durability
index for each lithology is shown with a red circle. The number of samples for each
location and standard deviation are shown in the parentheses. See Figure 1.2 for location
of open pit. Appendix B summarizes the location and description of these samples. ......48
Figure 2.14: Variations between slake durability index, point load index, mineralogy, and
chemistry. The mineralogy and chemical analyses were performed on splits of the same
sample set that were used in the geotechnical testing and represent the mineralogy and
chemistry of the sample tested by geotechnical methods. See Figure 1.2 for location of
rock piles. Appendix B summarizes the location and description of these samples..........50
Figure 2.15: Variation in slake index and point load index of the Questa rock materials. 51
Figure 2.16: Variations between slake durability index, point load index, friction angle,
and residual friction angle. The friction angle was determined on the fine-grained matrix
from the same location as the samples tested for slake durability and point load, which
were determined on larger rock fragments. See Figure 1.2 for location of rock piles. See
Figure 1.3 for location of trenches in GHN where samples were obtained. Appendix B
summarizes the location and description of these samples. ...............................................52
Figure 2.17: Variation in slake index, point load index and paste pH of the Questa rock
materials. See Figure 1.2 for location of rock piles. See Figures 1.2 and 1.3 for location of
trenches and geologic unites in GHN where samples were obtained. Appendix B
summarizes the location and description of these samples. The upper part of the figure is
for the all the other rock pile location and the analogs except the GHN whereas the lower
part is GHN….. ..................................................................................................................54
Figure 2.18: Variation in slake index, point load and simple weathering indices (SWI) of
the Questa rock materials. See Figure 1.2 for location of rock piles. See Figures 1.2 and
1.3 for location of trenches in GHN and geologic units where samples were obtained.
Appendix B summarizes the location and description of these samples. The upper part of
the figure is for the all the other rock pile location and the analogs excluding the GHN
whereas the lower part is GHN. .........................................................................................55
Figure 3.1: Photograph of Goat Hill debris flow. Boxes show location of collected
samples. Collected samples consist of a bulk grab of rock material stored in 5 gallon
buckets and includes matrix (soil) and rock fragments. ....................................................67
Figure 3.2: Variations of slake index, friction angle, and point load index and percent
gravel with depth from the base of the debris flow profile. No observed trend of
parameters with depth. .......................................................................................................71
Figure 3.3: Variations of paste pH, paste conductivity, water content and dry density with
depth from the base of the debris flow profile. No clear trend was observed between the
parameters and depth. ........................................................................................................72
vi
Figure 3.4: Gradation curves for the sieve analysis on the individual samples from the
debris flow profile. .............................................................................................................73
Figure 3.5: Variations of FeO and Fe oxide minerals with depth from the base of the
debris flow profile. No clear trend of parameters with profile. .........................................74
Figure 3.6: Variations of total feldspar (K-feldspar+plagioclase) with depth from the base
of the debris flow profile. No clear trend of parameters with profile. ...............................74
Figure 3.7: Variations of selected trace elements with depth from the base of the debris
flow profile. No clear trend of trace elements with profile................................................75
Figure 3.8: Variations of sulphur and SO4 with depth from the base of the debris flow ..75
Figure 3.9: Variations of sulphur/sulphate ratio with depth from the base of the debris
flow profile. No clear trend of sulphur/sulphate with profile. ...........................................75
Figure 3.10: Variations of geochemical and mineralogical parameters on the X-axis and
sample location along the profile from base to top on the y-axis. No clear trend of
parameters with profile. .....................................................................................................76
Figure 3.11: Clay mineralogy XRD scans for the debris flow weathering profile. I = illite,
C = Chlorite, S = smectite, K = kaolinite, J = Jarosite. .....................................................77
Figure 3.12: Backscattered electron microprobe image showing a cemented grain
consisting of small hydrothermally-altered phenocrysts within MIN-GFA-0001 sample.
The cement consists of clay minerals (illite), jarosite, and Fe oxides. The numbered
points represent points for mineral chemistry. ...................................................................79
Figure 3.13: Backscattered electron microprobe image showing well cemented grains of
hydrothermally-altered phenocrysts within MIN-GFA-0001 sample. Illite, jarosite and Fe
oxide crystals are cementing the rock fragments. The cementation is similar in chemistry
and texture as that found in the GHN rock pile. The numbered points represent points for
mineral chemistry...............................................................................................................79
Figure 3.14: Backscattered electron image (BSE) of a soil sample from GHN rock pile
showing rock fragment and associated fine-grained matrix material. Note the similarity in
texture of the cementation of rock fragments in this image compared to the image in
Figure 3.13. The fine-grained matrix consists of clay minerals and gypsum. ...................80
Figure 3.15: Backscattered electron microprobe image showing well-cemented
hydrothermally-altered phenocrysts within MIN-GFA-0006 sample. Illite, jarosite, Fe
oxide and feldspar crystals are cementing the rock fragments. The numbered points
represent points for mineral chemistry. .............................................................................81
Figure 3.16: Backscattered electron microprobe image showing hydrothermally-altered
phenocrysts within MIN-GFA-0006 sample. Illite, jarosite, Fe oxide and kaolinite
crystals cementing the rock fragments. The numbered points represent points for mineral
chemistry…….. ..................................................................................................................81
Figure 3.17: Sample location along the profile, sample photos and microprobe images
along with sample type and strength of cementing agents. ...............................................82
Figure 4.1: Location of venting drill holes and surface vent area (SGS-JMS-0001). Blue
indicates drill holes drilled in 1999 that contain monitoring instruments for temperature,
O2 and CO2. Red indicates drill holes and surface vent area that do not contain
temperature and gas instrumentation and are sites monitored by the New Mexico Tech
team………….. ..................................................................................................................86
Figure 4.2: Temperature log of drill hole SI-50 from Sugar Shack South rock pile. ........89
vii
Figure 4.3: Variations in slake durability index and paste pH with depth in drill hole SI50. Temperature log is in Figure 4.2. Red lines indicate approximate boundaries of the
hot zone (i.e. where temperatures exceed 50ºC). ...............................................................92
Figure 4.4: Variations in LL (liquid limit) and PI (plasticity index) with depth in drill hole
SI-50. Temperature log is in Figure 4.2. Red lines indicate approximate boundaries of the
hot zone (i.e. where temperatures exceed 50ºC). ...............................................................92
Figure 4.5: Variations in Gypsum+jarosite, K feldspar+plagioclase and total clay with
depth in drill hole SI-50. Temperature log is in Figure 4.2. Red lines indicate approximate
boundaries of the hot zone (i.e. where temperatures exceed 50ºC). ..................................93
Figure 4.6: Variation in K-feldspar+plagioclase, gypsum+jarosite, total clay and slake
index of the hot zone rock materials from Sugar Shack South rock pile. ..........................94
viii
List of Tables
Table 1.1: Questa Mine Rock Piles Description (URS Corporation, 2003) ......................11
Table 1.1 Cont....................................................................................................................12
Table 2.1: Simple weathering index for rock-pile material (including rock fragments and
matrix) at the Questa mine. ................................................................................................24
Table 2.2: Point load strength index classification (Broch and Franklin, 1972). ..............32
Table 2.3: Slake durability index classification (Franklin and Chandra, 1972). ...............34
Table 2.4: Visual descriptions of the remaining rock pieces after the second cycle. ........34
Table 2.5: Summary descriptive statistics of the strength classification for all samples.
Samples from Southwest Hansen (SWH) and Hansen (HAS) alteration scar were too
weak to perform point load test, hence those point load test results are not included in this
table. This was probably a result of the highly fractured nature of the samples collected
from these areas. ................................................................................................................40
Table 2.6: Summary descriptive statistics of the durability classification for all samples.41
Table 3.1: Comparison of the different weathering environments in the rock piles and
analog sites in the Questa area. QSP=quartz-sericite-pyrite. .............................................62
Table 3.2: Summary of sample preparation for specific laboratory analyses for samples
collected from the weathering profile. XRF–X-ray fluorescence analyses, XRD–X-ray
diffraction analysis, slake durability tests, point load tests. ...............................................65
Table 3.3: Description of the debris flow profile. ..............................................................67
Table 3.4: Geological and geotechnical parameters of samples collected from the debris
flow profile. Samples MIN-GFA-0006 and MIN-GFA-0007 did not contain rock
fragments but rather soils materials due to the nature of the samples, point load and slake
durability tests were not performed on them. ....................................................................68
Table 3.5: Chemical composition of samples collected from debris flow profile. Oxides
are in weight percent and trace elements are in parts per million. .....................................69
Table 3.6: Mineral composition of samples collected from debris flow profile, in weight
percent (as determined by quantitative mineralogy method from the modified ModAn
method, McLemore et al., 2009). QSP=quartz, pyrite, sericite alteration and QMWI=
Questa mineral weathering index.......................................................................................70
Table 4.1: Slake durability indices for samples in drill hole SI-50 from Sugar Shack
South and their individual classification (Franklin and Chandra, 1972). ..........................89
Table 4.2: Point load strength indices for samples in drill hole SI-50 from Sugar Shack
South and their strength classification. (Broch and Franklin, 1972). Most of the samples
did not have big rock fragments for the point load test since the samples were collected
from drill cutting. ...............................................................................................................90
Table 4.3: Atterberg Limits through drill hole SI-50 from Sugar Shack South (URS,
2003)…………. .................................................................................................................90
ix
This thesis is accepted on behalf of the
Faculty of the Institute by the following committee:
_________________________________________________________
Research Advisor
__________________________________________________________
Academic Advisor
__________________________________________________________
Committee Member
___________________________________________________________
Date
I release this document to the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
_____________________________________________________________
Student's Signature
Date
1.0
1.1.
INTRODUCTION
Background
Chevron Mining Inc. funded a multidisciplinary study to investigate how and to
what extent weathering affects the gravitational stability of the Questa mine-rock piles in
100 and 1000 years at their mine near Questa, New Mexico. This research work covers
four of the rock piles and the analogs (alteration scars and debris flow).
Point load and slake durability tests are two of the geotechnical tests being
conducted on samples from the Questa mine, rock piles and analogs to determine their
intact rock strength and durability. The purpose of this work are to determine if there is
any correlations between point load strength index and slake durability index with
internal friction angle, chemistry, mineralogy, and weathering indices in order to
determine the effect of weathering on the geotechnical parameters, characterize the debris
flow and study the strength of the hot zone-rock fragments. The debris flows in the
Questa area are identified as natural analogs for future weathering of the rock piles,
because they have undergone hydrothermal alteration, weathering, and erosion since they
were formed and could represent the future weathering of the rock piles.
Past studies by D’Andrea et al. (1964), Broch and Franklin (1972), Bieniawski
(1975), Hassani et al. (1980), Gunsallus and Kulhawy (1984) and Panek and Fannon
(1992), are well known with regard to point load testing. These studies have introduced
correlations between point load strength index and other geotechnical parameters.
Franklin and Chandra (1972), Rodrigues (1991), and Dick and Shakoor (1995) also
confirmed that, slaking of rocks is an important consideration in evaluating the
engineering behavior of rock-mass and rock-materials in geotechnical practice. Hence
1
strength and durability are important geotechnical parameters used in evaluating intact
rock strength and durability.
Dick and Shakoor (1995) emphasized the fact that, slake durability is an
important rock characteristic property that controls the stability of natural and man-made
slopes. The slaking behavior of a rock has a major influence in rock failure (Dhakal et al.
2002). Also, Johnson and DeGraff (1988) and Cetin et al. (2000), explained that the nondurable behavior of the rocks comes from the long and short-term influence of chemical
weathering. This indicates how necessary it is to study weathering processes and slaking
property. It is also important to determine the mineralogy and textural properties of the
rocks when assessing the slaking property.
The point load strength index is one of the suitable methods used to determine the
strength of intact rock. It can test irregular lumps of rock samples, which makes it
suitable for studying weathered rocks, many of which cannot be machined into regular
shaped specimens since they might be too broken or too friable.
1.2
Thesis Overview
This thesis research is not organized in the traditional manner of thesis. Instead, it
is a compilation of one published manuscript and two unpublished project reports. Thus,
this thesis is divided into five chapters:
•
Chapter 1 contains a general background of this research and a project site
description.
•
Chapter 2 is the manuscript submitted and accepted as a SME preprint for the
2009 annual meeting (Ayakwah et al, 2009).
2
•
Chapter 3 is an unpublished report to Chevron Mining company (McLemore,
et al., 2009).)
•
Chapter 4 is a characterization of slake durability and point load of samples
from the hot zone studying the front rock piles and is taken from McLemore et
al. (2008),
•
1.3
Chapter 5 presents the Conclusion and Recommendation of this study.
Project Background
Chevron Mining Inc., formerly Molycorp Inc., the owner and operator of Questa
molybdenum mine, initiated the Questa Rock Pile Weathering and Stability Project
(QRPWASP) in 2002. The company requested Letters of Intent to do Research from
qualified university researchers and research groups to investigate the potential effect of
weathering on the stability of rock piles at its mine (Molycorp Inc., 2002). The purpose of
the research is to investigate the geochemical and physical weathering effect over time on
the mine’s rock pile fabric, water movement through the rock piles, and the mechanical
properties of the mine rock piles.
The University of Utah put together a team of university researchers and consultants
from the United States and Canada to embark on the rock pile weathering study, which is
currently known as the Questa Rock Pile Weathering Stability Project. The team is made
up of geologists, geophysicists, geochemists, hydrologists, biologists, geotechnical
engineers, students and other supporting staff from the following academic and
consulting organizations:
•
Geochimica Inc., Aptos, CA, USA
•
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN, USA
3
•
New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, Socorro, NM, USA
•
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, NM, USA
•
R2 Incorporated, Denver, CO, USA
•
Soil Vision Systems Ltd., Saskatoon, SK, Canada
•
Spectral International Inc., Arvada, CO, USA
•
The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
•
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
•
University of California, Berkley, CA, USA
•
University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA
•
Weber State University, Ogden, UT, USA
This thesis work is part of the stability study.
1.4
Thesis Objective and Scope
The purpose of this work is to examine the relationship between chemistry,
mineralogy, and weathering indexes with some geotechnical parameters in order to
determine the effect of weathering on the geotechnical parameters. The objectives of this
study are as follows:
•
To determine the strength and durability of the rock particles within the rock
piles, the debris flow and the alteration scars by performing point load strength
and slake durability tests.
•
To determine possible relationships between geotechnical parameters and
mineralogy, chemistry and simple weathering indexes.
•
To characterize the debris flow.
4
•
1.5
To study the durability of rock fragments from the hot zone.
Description of study area
1.5.1 Location
The Questa mine is operated by the Chevron Mining Inc., formerly Molycorp,
Inc., and is 5.6 km (3.5 miles) east of the village of Questa, in the Taos County, in the
western part of the Taos range of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, in the northern part of
New Mexico (Fig. 1.1). The mine is on the south-facing slope of the north side of the Red
River valley between an east-west trending ridgeline of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains
and State Highway 38 to the Red River at 2438m elevation (URS Corporation, 2003).
5
Figure 1.1: Location map of the Questa mine.
1.5.2
History of Questa Mine
In 1914, two local prospectors staked multiple claims in an area of the Sangre de
Cristo mountain range called Sulphur Gulch. They discovered a dark, metallic material
thought to be graphite at the time of exploration. In 1919, a sample was sent to the
laboratory to be analyzed for gold and silver. Molybdenum was rather found to be
present. Molybdenum (Mo) is a refractory metallic element used principally as an
alloying agent in steel, cast iron, and superalloys to enhance hardenability, strength,
toughness, wear and corrosion resistance (Molycorp, 2007). R&S Molybdenum Mining
Co. began underground mining in the Sulphur Gulch of the high grade molybdenum
veins in 1918 and by June 1920, Molybdenum Corporation of America (Molycorp) was
formed and acquired the R&S Molybdenum Mining Co.
6
In August of 1923, Molycorp acquired the June bug mill in Elizabethtown, NM.
This mill could produce one ton of molybdenum concentrate daily from every 25 tons of
ore. All molybdenum production during this time was from high grade, vein molybdenite
(MoS2) with grades running as high as 35% molybdenum. This mill was one of the first
floatation mills in North America. The mill was rebuilt several times and operated on a
continuous basis until 1956, when the underground mining operations ceased. In 1963,
the mill was dismantled in order to make way for the current mill.
By 1926, the demand for molybdenum continued to increase and Molycorp’s
Questa mine was the second largest producer of molybdenite in the world. The cost of the
mining operation increased significantly in Questa until 1941. This resulted in the
construction of a tunnel from Red River Canyon to the ore deposits, to decrease haulage,
drainage and ventilation expenses.
From 1957 to 1960, exploration by drifting, cross cutting and core drilling
methods was conducted under contract with the Defense Minerals Exploration Act. In the
early part of 1963, it was discovered that, an open pit mine was economically feasible. In
1964 alone they completed 51816 m of diamond and rotary drilling and made
considerable underground bulk sampling. Molycorp continued with open pit development
at Questa, and by 1965 the first open pit ore was delivered to the new 10,000 tpd mill.
Exploration and development drilling were also a priority to provide additional
reserves and also for ore control. Pre-production stripping was started in September 1964,
and the first ore from the pit was delivered to the mill in January 1966. During the open
pit mining production period, approximately 317.5 million metric tons of overburden
rock were stripped and deposited onto mountain slopes and into tributary valleys forming
7
the rock piles examined in this study (URS Corporation, 2003). The elevation of these
rock piles ranges from 134 to 482 m.
Molycorp was acquired by Union Oil Company of California (UNOCAL) in
August 1977. In November 1978, re-development of the existing underground mine
began with two vertical shafts bottoming out at approximately 396 m deep. A mile-long
decline was also constructed from the existing mill area to the haulage level. The mill
floatation area was restructured to accommodate the higher grade of underground ore.
In January 1982, mining from the open pit ceased and in August of 1983, the new
underground mine began operating using block caving techniques. Employment at this
time reached approximately 900 workers. In 1986, an extremely "soft" market caused the
first shutdown of the mine in recent history. The mine was re-opened in 1989 and
continued to operate until January 1992, when the mine ceased production for the second
shutdown due to low prices of the commodity. The mine re-started in 1995 with the
majority of the year devoted to restoration, such as dewatering and repair. Development
of the next ore body (“D” Ore Body) began in 1998 and production began in October
2000. Molycorp Inc. was acquired by Chevron Mining Inc. in 2007.
1.5.3
Mine Features
The location of the mine rock piles and other mine features are shown in Figure
1.2. The nine mine rock piles that were constructed from 317.5 million metric tons of
overburdened and mine rocks during the surface mining period (URS Corporation, 2003)
are the most noticeable features at the mine site. The rock piles are situated on the
mountain slopes adjacent to the open pit and include Middle, Sugar Shack South and Old
8
Sulphur (Sulphur Gulch South) rock piles whose toes are along State Highway 38 and
can easily be seen when driving on the road. These piles are referred to as the Front Rock
Piles or Roadside Rock Piles and are together with Sugar Shack West, on the southfacing slopes of the mountain. On the east side of the pit are Spring Gulch and Blind
Gulch/Sulphur Gulch North rock piles. Capulin, Goathill North and Goathill South rock
piles are on west-facing mountain slopes on the west side of the open pit.
Figure 1.2: Map of chevron mine site showing mine rock piles and mine features.
These mine rock piles cover a surface area of approximately 2.75 million m2 and
extend vertically from just above the elevation of the Red River 134 m to approximately
482 m, resulting in some of the highest mine rock piles in North America (Wels et al.,
2002). They are typically at angle of repose and have long slope lengths (up to 610 m),
9
and comparatively shallow thicknesses, (Lefebvre et al., 2002). Table 1.1 summarizes the
description of the various nine mine rock piles.
The Goathill North (GHN) rock pile is one of the nine rock piles created during
the open-pit mining and contains approximately 16 million metric tons of overburden
material with slopes similar to the original topography. GHN was divided into two areas
namely: a stable area and an unstable area. The unstable area has slid down the slope
since its construction. Molycorp stabilized this rock pile by removing material from the
top portion of both areas to the bottom of the pile (Norwest Corporation, 2003). This
decreased the slope, reduced the load, and created a buttress to prevent movement of the
rock pile. During the progressive down-cutting of the top of the stable portion of GHN
(regrading), trenches were constructed to examine, map, and sample the internal geology
of the rock pile. End-dumping generally results in the segregation of materials with the
finer-grained material at the top and coarser-grained material at the base. The resulting
layers locally are at, or near, the angle of repose and subparallel to the original slope
angle. Detailed geologic mapping and sampling revealed that, these layers could be
defined as mappable geologic units in the rock pile (Fig. 1.3). Units were defined on the
basis of grain size, color, texture, stratigraphic position, and other physical properties that
could be observed in the field (McLemore et al., 2005, 2006a, 2006b, and 2008). Units
were correlated between benches and opposite sides of each trench, and several units
were correlated down slope through the excavated trenches.
10
Figure 1.3: Conceptual geological model of GHN rock pile, as interpreted from surface
mapping, detailed geologic cross-sections, trenches, drill holes, construction method and
observations during reclamation of GHN (McLemore et. al., 2008a)
Table 1.1: Questa Mine Rock Piles Description (URS Corporation, 2003)
Rock pile
Maximum
height (ft)
Maximum
thickness (ft)
Footprint
(acres)
Slope
area
(acres)
Slope
Overall
slope
Quantity of
rock (million
tons)
Sugar
Shack
West
980
200
43
50.7
1.7 to
1.5H:1V
1.6H:1V
31
Sugar
Shack
South
1580
400
128.4
151.4
2.1 to
1.4H:1V
1.6H:1V
53
Middle
1300
500
140
155.76
1.1 to
1.4H:1V
2.1H:1V
46
Sulphur
Gulch
750
350
70.9
75
3.3 to
1.5H:1V
2.9H:1V
80
11
Blind
Gulch
740
375
128.3
134
2.0 to
1.4h:1V
3.7H:1V
36
Spring
Gulch
770
325
84.9
89
2.0 to
1.6H:1V
3.0H:1V
31
Capulin
440
225
44.4
47.6
3.7 to
1.3H:1V
1.7H:1V
26
Goathill
North
630
200
56.8
59
5.7 to
1.4H:1V
2.3H:1V
16
Goathill
South
500
75
8.8
10
1.9 to
1.5H:1V
1.6H:1V
9
Table 1.1 Cont
Rock pile
Years placed on
benches
Sugar Shack
West
Years placed on
slopes
Soil loss
(tons/acre/year)
Annual soil loss
(tons/year)
1969, 1973, 1974,
1976, 1977
32
1376
Sugar Shack
South
1974
1973, 1974, 1976,
1979
34.7
4442
Middle
1974, 1979, 1991
1974, 1976, 1077
31.9
4466
Sulphur
Gulch
1973, 1974, 1977,
1979, 1991, 1997
1969, 1974, 1976
34.7
2464
Blind Gulch
1973, 1974, 1991,
1997
1976, 1977
12.7
1626
Spring Gulch
1969, 1973, 1974,
1976, 1977, 1991
1976
8
680
22
968
22.8
1300
21
189
Capulin
1974, 1976, 1977
Goathill
North
1964-1974
Goathill
South
1969
1.5.4. Mine geology and mineralogy
Schilling (1956), Rehrig (1969), Lipman (1981), Carpenter (1968), and Meyer
and Leonardson (1990; 1997) summarized the geology and mineralogy of the area under
12
study. Figure 1.4 is a simplified geologic map of the Questa-Red River vicinity (from
Ludington et al., 2004).
Figure 1.4: Geologic map of Questa – Red River Vicinity (Ludington et al., 2004.)
Caine (2003) stated that, the Red River Valley which is located along the southern
edge of the Questa caldera, contains complex structural features and extensive
hydrothermal alteration.
The Questa molybdenite deposit formed 24.5 million years ago during and after
an extensive period of volcanic activity. At that time, extremely hot water originated
from molten rock (magma) about a mile below the earth’s surface. When the magma
solidified and the hot water cooled down, molybdenite together with other minerals listed
13
in Table 1.2 precipitated from the water to fill fractures and form the veins that define the
Questa orebodies. Table 1.2 summarizes some of the minerals found in the mine area.
Table 1.2: Relative stabilities, approximate concentrations, and compositions of minerals
found in Questa rock pile deposits (NM Tech electron microprobe results in bold, other
elements by Molling, 1989; Shum, 1999; Piche and Jebrak, 2004; Plumlee et al., 2006;
McLemore et al., 2008). Tr=trace, Approx=approximate.
Relative
stability
Mineral
Approx
%
Primary
elements
Trace
elements
Formula
Easily
weathered
pyrite
0-8
Zn, S
Cd
FeS2
calcite
0-5
Cu, Fe, S
anhydrite
tr
Pb, S
hornblende
0-tr
Ca, Mo
Biotite/
phlogopite
0-13
Ca, W
Kfe3AlSi3O10(OH)2
apatite
0-1
Be, Al, Si
Ca5P3O12·OH
jarosite
0-0.5
Mn, Be, Si
alunite
0-0.5
Bi, S
copiapite
0-0.5
Fe, Mn, W
schwertmanite
0-0.01
Ca, F
Y
Fe16O16(OH,SO4)12–13·10H2O
sphalerite
0-0.1
Mg, Ca,
CO
Sr, Al, Mg,
Mn, Fe, Si,
Ba
ZnS
chalcopyrite
0-0.1
Mn, Ca,
CO
galena
0-0.1
N, Al, Si
Cu, Ga, Ba,
Sr,
PbS
powellite
0-0.1
K, Al, Si
Rb, Ba, Sr,
Cu, Ga
CaMoO4
scheelite
0-0.1
Ca, Al, Si
Ba, Sr,
CaWO4
beryl
0-0.1
K, Al, Si
F, Cl, Ti,
Cr, Mg,
Na, Ca,
Mn, Fe,
Be3Al2Si6O18
14
CaCO3
Ag
Zn
CaSO4
KFe3(SO4) 2 (OH)6
Fe+2(Fe+3)4(SO4)6(OH) 2·20H2O
CuFeS
Relative
stability
Mineral
Approx
%
Primary
elements
Trace
elements
Formula
Rb, Ba, Sr,
Ga, V, Be?,
Li?
Moderately
weathered
helvite
0-0.1
Fe, Ti
Al, Mg,
Ca, Mn,
Zn, Co, Ni,
Cr, V
Mn4Be3(SiO4) 3S
bismuthinite
0-0.1
Ca, Al, Si
Cr, Mg,
Mn, Fe,
Na, Ti
Bi2S3
wolframite
0-0.1
Fe, Al, Mg,
Si, Be?
F, Be?, Li?,
various
(Fe,Mn)WO4
fluorite
0-0.1
Si, Al, Mg,
Ca, Na, K,
Be?
P, S, Ti,
Mn, Fe, F,
Cl, Be?,
Li?
CaF2
dolomite
0-0.1
Fe, Cr
MgCa(CO3) 2
rhodochrosite
0-0.1
Ca, Ti, Si
MnCO3
Ti
NaAlSi3O8
KAlSi3O8
albite
orthoclase
0-24
Be
anorthite
0-20
Ba, S
Muscovite
(sericite, illite)
0-30
Ca, Mg, Si,
OH
Sr
CaAl2Si2O8
KAl2(Si3Al)O10(OH) 2
magnetite
0-1
Si
Fe3O4
Epidote
0-16
Al, H, Si
F, Cl
CaFeAl3 (SiO4)3(OH)
chlorite
0-12
Ca, S
Sr, Ba
Mg3Fe2Al2Si3O10(OH)8
smectite
0-24
Fe
chromite
0-0.1
Fe
Various
FeCrO4
titanite
0-0.1
Fe, Al
Various
CaTiSiO4·OH
rutile
0-0.1
Fe, Mn, Ti
various
TiO2
Ca0.33(Mg0.66Al3.34)(Si8)(OH) 4
15
Relative
stability
Very stable
Mineral
Approx
%
Primary
elements
Trace
elements
Formula
beryl
0-0.01
Mo, S
barite
0-0.01
Si, Fe, Mn,
Al
various
BaSO4
actinolite
0-1
Zn, S
Cd
Ca2Mg5Si8O22 (OH) 2
quartz
0-66
Cu, Fe, S
kaolinite
0-7
Pb, S
gypsum
0-20
Ca, Mo
CaSO3·H2O
ferrihydrite
0-0.01
Ca, W
Fe(OH) 3
hematite
0-10
Be, Al, Si
goethite
0-1
Mn, Be, Si
FeMnTi oxides
0-10
Bi, S
molybdenite
0-0.1
Fe, Mn, W
Amorphous Si,
Fe, Mn, Al
?
Ca, F
BeO
SiO2
Ag
Zn
Al2Si2O5(OH) 4
FeOOH
(goethite,
hematite, etc.)
MoS
Y
various
The molybdenite orebodies are part of a zone of hydrothermal alteration that contains
varyibg amounts of pyrite and extends along the Red River valley, and is similar in
mineralogy, lithology, and hydrothermal alteration, to the adjacent Red River mining
district. A zone of bleached and weathered rocks overlies the pyrite zone. The bleached
and weathered rock zone extends up to 914.4 m wide. There also exist steep cliffs with no
vegetation which define areas of active mass wastage (landslides), and which are agents
of acid rock weathering. When the pyrite mineral decomposes in the presence of water,
oxygen and bacteria it forms sulfuric acid, which can lead to weathering (Molycorp Inc.,
2007)
16
One of the most visible geologic features of the Questa-Red River region are
naturally formed alteration scars (Fig. 1.5). The scars are source areas for mudflows and
have considerably changed the topographic form of the Red River since the last ice age.
McLemore et al. (2004d) and Meyer and Leonardson (1990) stated that these alteration
scars are natural, multicolored (red to yellow to orange to brown), comparatively unstable
landforms that are distinguished by steep slopes (greater than 25 degrees), moderate to
high pyrite content (typically greater than 1 percent), little or no vegetation, and
extensively fractured bedrock.
Figure 1.5: Map of the alteration scars at the Questa Mine. The red circles shows where
samples were taken from, for point load and slake durability test.
1.6
Rock mass and intact rock strength
Rock strength is defined as the rock withstanding deformation until their brittle
failure. Brittle failure is a process that occurs when rocks alter from one behavior state to
17
another and consists of the entire process of deformation up to the peak resistance.
Propagating pre-existing cracks is a function of brittle failure.
Rock strength is
dependent on many factors such as strength of intact rock, degree of weathering, joint
spacing, joint orientation, joint width, joint continuity and infill and the flow of ground
water through the joints.
Rock mass and intact rock strength can be achieved by performing a variety of
tests. The easiest and quickest tests are the simple hammer and pocket test which
provides qualitative rock strength classification. Triaxial, point load strength, uniaxial
compressive strength, brazilian strength and direct shear tests are some of the
geotechnical tests performed on rock and soil samples to determine the strength of the
sample and to aid in geotechnical evaluation of the stability of the area under study.
Broch and Franklin (1972) stated that, some of these tests are more sophisticated, and
most provide reliable qualitative and quantitative results. The point load strength test,
which was used in this research is practical, sensitive and provides reliable results.
1.6.1 Rock durability and slaking
Durability is defined as the resistance of rock to weakening and disintegration
when subjected to short term weathering over time (Fookes et.al, 1971). Quine (1993),
described slaking as the swelling or disintegration of a rock by the interaction of clay
minerals with water.
Kolay and Kayabali, (2006) described that; rocks containing high-plasticity clays
may swell, shrink and slake. Excessive slaking could lead to rapid weathering of exposed
18
rocks which are prone to earthfills failure, slope stability problems and also strength
reduction with rocks exposed to air in underground openings (Gokceoglu et al., 2000)
There are several types of durability such as: frost-durability, abrasion-durability,
chemical-durability, breakdown-durability, and slake-durability depending on the type of
weathering or resistance influence. For the purpose of this research, slake durability test
was used and is described in the 2.3.2 section of chapter 2. The slake durability index is
an important parameter for rock materials and rock masses (Franklin and Chandra, 1972;
Gokceoglu et al., 2000; Dhakal et al., 2002; Dhakal et al., 2004). The susceptibility of
rocks to weathering and the degree of weathering could be estimated using slake
durability index. This is an important engineering parameter for rocks such as mudstone,
marl, ignimbrite, weakly cemented conglomerate, and siltstone (Gokceoglu et al., 2000).
Zhao et al. (1994) used the notion of slake durability to study the weathering processes of
granitic rocks.
Kolay and Kayabali (2006), investigated the effect of aggregate shape and surface
roughness on the slake durability index using the fractal dimension approach and
concluded that, the best results can be achieved when well rounded samples having the
lowest fractal values are used since the rounded aggregates plotted relatively in a narrow
range as compared to the angular and subangular aggregates. Kolay and kayabali, 2006
concluded that, rocks with lower slake durability indices are more susceptible to the
variations with the aggregate shape and surface roughness.
Gokeoglu et al., 2000 examined the factors affecting the durability of selected
weak and clay bearing rocks from Turkey, with emphasis on the influence of the number
of drying and wetting cycles and concluded that, with the exception of the rocks with a
19
higher clay percentage, the results from the second cycle ranges from 88.1 to 99.8% and
described these rock types correspond to high carbonate content, whereas the rock types
with a higher clay content had low durability of 0 to 70% from the second cycle.
Dhakal et al. (2004) stated that slake durability of rocks increases as the
concentration of dissolved electrolytes, such as sodium chloride increases. Acidic
environment severely affects rocks rich in calcium carbonate and or magnesium
carbonate whereas, rocks rich in quartz, feldspar and muscovite are not dependent on the
pH of the slaking fluid (Gupta and Ahmed, 2007).
Dick and Shakoor (1995) investigated into the durability of mudrocks for slope
stability purposes. They classified the durability of mudrocks as high, medium or low on
the basis of relationships between lithologic characteristics, slake durability, and slope
conditions and used their classification to assess the possibility of occurrence of
excessive erosion, slumps, debris flows and undercutting-induced failures. They
concluded that, high-durable materials are susceptible to undercutting, medium-durability
mudrocks to slumps, debris flows and undercutting-induced failures and lastly lowdurability mudrocks to all types of slope instability.
Dhakal et al. (2002) examined the effect of mineralogical properties on the slake
durability of some pyroclastic and sedimentary rocks and concluded that the slake
durability of tuffaceous sandstone decreases as the degree of weathering increases.
Viterbo, 2007 studied the slake durability and point load strength from the
Goathill North (GHN) rock pile, one of the nine rock piles at the Questa Mine and
concluded that the rock fragments are still quite strong even after being highly fractured
and altered before being blasted, then emplaced in the pile and subsequently weathered.
20
This research work continues the work by Viterbo (2007), on four of the nine rock piles
and the analogs from the Chevron Mine.
21
2.0
EFFECTS OF WEATHERING AND ALTERATION ON POINT
LOAD AND SLAKE DURABILITY INDICES OF QUESTA MINE
MATERIALS, NEW MEXICO
2.1
Introduction
Point load strength and slake durability indices are two important geotechnical
parameters that can be used in characterizing the strength of rock fragments and their
durability to weathering. The point load strength index is one of several suitable methods
used to determine the intact rock strength. Because point load strength testing can be
applied to irregular rock samples, it is suitable for studying weathered rocks, many of
which cannot be easily machined into regular shaped samples, because they are too
fractured or friable. The slake durability test was developed to evaluate the influence of
alteration on rocks by measuring their resistance to deterioration and breakdown when
subjected to wetting and drying cycles. The purpose of this study is 1) to determine the
strength and durability rock fragments, 2) to determine how point load strength and slake
durability indices are affected by the chemistry and mineralogy of rocks, and 3) to
determine the effect of weathering and alteration of the Questa mine materials on these
indices.
The durability of rocks can be described as their resistance to breakdown under
weathering conditions over time. Slaking occurs from the swelling of clay minerals in
rocks when they come into contact with water. The slake durability index measures the
durability of rocks. It gives quantitative information on the mechanical behavior of rocks
22
according to the amount of clay and other secondary minerals produced in them due to
their exposure to weathering (Fookes et al., 1971).
Many researchers have studied the point load strength of rocks and have tried to
correlate the point load strength index with other geotechnical parameters (D’Andrea et
al., 1964 ; Broch and Franklin, 1972; Bieniawski, 1975 ; Hassani et al., 1980; Gunsallus
and Kulhawy, 1984 and Panek and Fannon, 1992). Franklin and Chandra (1972),
Rodrigues (1991), and Dick and Shakoor (1995) suggest that slaking of rocks is also an
important consideration in evaluating the engineering behavior of rock mass and rock
materials in geotechnical practices. Dick and Shakoor (1995) emphasized the fact that
durability is an important rock characteristic parameter controlling the stability of natural
and man-made slopes. Dhakal et al. (2002) indicated that the slaking behavior of a rock
has a major influence on rock failure. Johnson and DeGraff (1988) and Cetin et al. (2000)
explained that the non-durable behavior of rocks is a result of the long- and short-term
influences of chemical weathering; this indicates how necessary it is to assess weathering
and to determine the mineralogy and textural properties of rocks when assessing the
slaking property. Dhakal et al. (2002) stated that the slaking behavior of pyroclastic
(similar to the Questa volcanic rocks) and sedimentary rocks can play a major role in
slope failure. Nevertheless, very few studies of rock piles evaluate point load and slake
durability tests with respect to mineralogy, chemistry and other geotechnical parameters
of the tested rocks. Actual slake durability and point load indices from researchers such
as Quine (1993) reported point load indices for some rock- pile samples collected in
Nevada that ranged from 2.9 to 4.6 MPa, while the slake durability indices ranged from
88 to 99% with an additional single value of 6%. Samples from the Eskihisar lignite mine
23
in Turkey (Gökçeoglu et al., 2000) had slake durability indices ranging from 88.7 to
96.8%, and rock pile-material from a marble mine in India had slake durability indices
ranging from 89.9 to 97.0% (Maharana, 2005).
2.2
Alteration and weathering of the Questa rock piles
Rock fragments in the Goathill North (GHN) samples are comprised of two main
lithologies, which are andesite and rhyolite (Amalia Tuff). Intrusive rocks, although
present within colluvium/weathered bedrock, alteration scar, debris flows, and other rock
piles are minor to absent within the GHN rock pile. All three rock types exhibit original
igneous textures, although the andesite fragments have typically undergone significant
hydrothermal alteration, whereas the rhyolite (Amalia Tuff) fragments are relatively
pristine or consisted of QSP alteration. The rhyolite (Amalia Tuff) fragments consisted of
large (~mm size) quartz and feldspar phenocrysts, surrounded by a devitrified glass
matrix. Three types of alteration have been described at Questa, including propyllitic,
quartz-sericite-pyrite (QSP), and argillic, although relict igneous textures are typically
evident (McLemore et al., 2008b). Rough estimates of the intensity of these three
alteration styles in the GHN rock pile were made petrographically. Although the ranges
of intensity of alteration styles within a single rock-pile unit are large, QSP alteration is
the most prevalent style, and argillic alteration is relatively minor. Propyllitic alteration is
present throughout the rock pile, although, at a lower intensity than QSP. There appears
to be slightly more propyllitic alteration in the interior rock-pile units (McLemore et al.,
2008b).
24
The evidence for weathering in the Questa rock piles includes (McLemore et al.,
2006a, b, 2008a):
•
Change in color from darker brown and gray in less weathered samples (original
color of igneous rocks) to yellow to white to light gray in the weathered samples
•
Thin yellow to orange, “burnt” layers within the interior of GHN, where water
and/or air flowed and oxidized the rock pile material
•
Paste pH, in general, is low in oxidized, weathered samples and paste pH is higher
in less weathered samples
•
Presence of jarosite, gypsum, iron oxide minerals and Fe-soluble salts (often as
cementing minerals), and low abundance to absence of calcite, pyrite, and epidote
in weathered samples
•
Tarnish or coatings of pyrite surfaces within weathered samples
•
Dissolution textures of minerals (skeletal, boxwork, honeycomb, increase in pore
spaces, fractures, change in mineral shape, accordion-like structures, loss of
interlocking textures, pits, etching) within weathered samples (McLemore et al.,
2008a)
•
Chemical classification as potential acid-forming materials using acid base
accounting methods (Tachie-Menson, 2006)
•
Cementation of rock fragments and soil matrix
•
Chemical analyses of water samples from the toe of GHN characterized by acidic,
high sulfate, high TDS, and high metal concentrations (Al, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, SO4).
In GHN, typically, paste pH increased with distance from the outer, oxidized units
(west) towards the interior units (east) of the GHN rock pile. The outer units were
25
oxidized (weathered) based upon the white and yellow coloration, low paste pH, presence
of jarosite and authigenic gypsum, and absence of calcite. The base of the rock pile
adjacent to the bedrock/colluvium surface represents the oldest part of the rock pile
because it was laid down first. Portions of the base appeared to be nearly or as oxidized
(weathered) as the outer, oxidized zone of the rock pile. This suggests that air and water
flowed along the basal interface, implying that it must be an active weathering zone.
Numerous weathering indices were evaluated in the current research. A
weathering index is a measure of how much a sample has weathered. Most of the
weathering indices in the literature are based only on geochemical parameters, which
restrict their application to the type of environment for which they were developed. These
weathering indices actually measure both pre-mining hydrothermal alteration and postmining weathering. A simple weathering index (SWI) was developed to differentiate the
weathering intensity of Questa rock pile materials in the field (SWI=1, fresh to SWI=5,
most weathered; Table 2.1; Gutierrez et al, 2008). The 5 classes in Table 2.1 describe the
SWI classification for the mine soils at the Questa mine based on relative intensity of
both physical and chemical weathering (modified in part from Little, 1969; Gupta and
Rao, 2001; Blowes and Jambor, 1990).
The SWI accounts for changes in color, texture, and mineralogy due to
weathering, but it is based on field descriptions. Some problems with this weathering
index are:
•
It is subjective and based upon field observations.
•
This index does not always enable distinction between pre-mining supergene
hydrothermal alteration and post-mining weathering.
26
•
The index is developed from natural residual soil weathering profiles, which
typically weathered differently from the acidic conditions within the Questa rock
piles and, therefore, this index may not adequately reflect the weathering
conditions within the rock piles.
•
This index refers mostly to the soil matrix; most rock fragments within the
sample are not weathered except perhaps at the surface of the fragment and
along cracks.
•
The index is based primarily upon color and color could be indicative of other
processes besides weathering intensity.
•
This index was developed for the Questa rock piles and may not necessarily
apply to other rock piles.
•
Weathering in the Questa rock piles is a semi open not a closed system (i.e.
water analysis indicates the loss of cations and anions due to oxidation).
Table 2.1: Simple weathering index for rock-pile material (including rock fragments and
matrix) at the Questa mine.
SWI
1
Name
Fresh
2
Least weathered
3
Moderately
weathered
4
Weathered
5
Highly weathered
Description
Original gray and dark brown to dark gray colors of igneous rocks; little to
no unaltered pyrite (if present); calcite, chlorite, and epidote common in
some hydrothermally altered samples. Primary igneous textures preserved.
Unaltered to slightly altered pyrite; gray and dark brown; angular to subangular rock fragments; presence of chlorite, epidote and calcite, although
these minerals are not required. Primary igneous textures still partially
preserved.
Pyrite altered (tarnished and oxidized), light brown to dark orange to gray:
more clay- and silt-size material; presence of altered chlorite, epidote and
calcite, but these minerals are not required. Primary igneous textures rarely
preserved.
Pyrite very altered (tarnished, oxidized, and pitted); Fe-hydroxides and
oxides present; light brown to yellow to orange; no calcite, chlorite, or
epidote except possibly within center of rock fragments (but the absence of
these minerals does not indicate this index), more clay-size material.
Primary igneous textures obscured.
No pyrite remaining; Fe-hydroxides and oxides, shades of yellow and red
typical; more clay minerals; no calcite, chlorite, or epidote (but the absence
27
SWI
Name
Description
of these minerals does not indicate this index); angular to sub-rounded rock
fragments
Paste pH is another indication of weathering used in this project, but it has
limitations as well. Paste pH is the pH measured from a paste or slurry that forms upon
mixing soil material and deionized water. In an acidic material, paste pH is an
approximate measurement of the acidity of a soil material that is produced by the
oxidation of pyrite and other sulfides. A low paste pH (2-3) along with yellow to orange
color and the presence of jarosite, gypsum, and low presence to absence of calcite are
consistent with oxidized conditions in the Questa rock piles (McLemore et al., 2006a, b;
Gutierrez et al., 2008). In general, paste pH increases from the outer, oxidized units of
GHN to the inner, less oxidized units.
Changes of mineralogy and chemistry between the outer, oxidized zone and the
interior, unoxidized zones of the rock piles are a result of differences due to pre-mining
composition as well as chemical weathering. These differences can be difficult to
distinguish, except by detailed field observations and petrographic analysis and the
changes due to hydrothermal alteration are more pronounced than those due to
weathering. Weathering processes, intensity, and rates will differ throughout the rock
piles. Because weathering intensities and effects are so variable and dependent upon
many factors, no single weathering index is valid over the entire spectrum of weathered
states (Duzgoren-Aydin and Aydin, 2002). Therefore, several indices can be used to
indicate some aspects of weathering in the Questa rock piles (McLemore et al., 2008a):
SWI, paste pH, authigenic gypsum, sum of gypsum and jarosite, SO4, and Net NP
(neutralizing potential).
28
2.3
Field and Analytical Methods
2.3.1 Sampling
Samples were collected, located by GPS coordinates, bagged, labeled and
transported to New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (NMIMT) and stored in a
trailer. Samples consist of representative rock pieces, each weighing between 40-60 g
(approximately 4-10 cm in dimension; more details are in Viterbo, 2007). These samples
were collected specifically for examining relationships between slake durability and point
load indices and mineralogy, chemistry, lithology, geotechnical parameters, and
weathering-alteration. Several different types of samples were collected for point load
and slake durability tests and included a range of lithologies, alteration assemblages, and
weathering intensities:
•
Rock fragments from rock-pile material that include mixtures of different
lithologies and alteration assemblages
o
Samples collected from the surface and from test pits in the rock piles
o
Samples of the rock-pile material collected from trenches in GHN (5 ft
channel or composite of selected layers)
•
Outcrop samples of unweathered (or least weathered) igneous rocks
representative of the mined rock (overburden) (includes all predominant
lithologies and alteration assemblages at various hydrothermal alteration)
o
andesite
o
quartz latite
o
rhyolite tuff (Amalia Tuff)
o
aplite, granitic porphyry
29
•
o
miscellaneous dike, flow, and tuffaceous rocks
o
material from alteration scars
Residual weathered soil profiles of colluvium/weathered bedrock, alteration scar,
and debris flows
•
Sections of drill-core samples of the mined rock (overburden) and ore deposit
before mining.
Different sampling strategies were employed based upon the purpose of each
sampling task. Typically, at each site, the samples for this study consisted of grab
samples of two or more pieces of rock-pile material, outcrop, or drill core samples
(typically 3-8 cm in diameter). These samples are more homogeneous than a grab sample
of rock-pile samples in that they are composed of one lithology and alteration
assemblage; whereas the grab sample of rock-pile material typically consists of multiple
lithologies and/or alteration assemblage. A portion of the collected sample was crushed
and pulverized for geochemical analysis. Thin sections were made of another portion of
selected rock samples for petrographic analysis, and another portion was used for the
geotechnical testing. Rock pile locations, debris flow, GHN trenches and alteration scars
are shown in Figures 1.1, 1.2 and 1.5respectively.
2.3.2
Laboratory Analysis
Point Load Test
The point load strength test was used to determine the strength of the rock
fragments at the Questa rock piles and the analogs (debris flow and alteration scars). The
test is a relatively simple and economical for estimating rock strength. The point load test
30
was developed by Broch and Franklin (1972) for classifying and characterizing rock
material. The International Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM) standardized and
established it in 1985 and it has been used for geotechnical study for over thirty years
(ISRM, 1985). The point load strength index can be used to predict other strength
parameters since it correlates closely with uniaxial tensile and compressive strengths
(Broch and Franklin, 1972; ISRM, 1985).
The point load test equipment consists of a loading frame that measures the force
required to split the sample and a system for measuring the distance between the two
contact loading points (Fig. 2.1). The point load test can be performed on samples with
different shapes, both cylindrical (core) and irregular shapes. The point load strength
index (Is50) corresponding to a specimen of 0.05 m in diameter, is calculated using
(ISRM, 1985):
Is50 =
P
×F
De2
(2.1)
where P is the peak load, De is the equivalent core diameter, and F is a size correction
factor (De/0.050)0.45. All samples are classified according to the classification index in
Table 2.2. Figure 2.2 shows a sample of rock fragments after test with the planes of
failure.
31
Display Gage
Load Handle
Conical Platens
Figure 2.1: The point load strength equipment in use (sample under test), showing
contact cones, the loading and measuring systems (display gage) and samples to be
tested.
Table 2.2: Point load strength index classification (Broch and Franklin, 1972).
Is50 (MPa)
Strength classification
< 0.03
Extremely low
0.03 – 0.1
Very low
0.1 – 0.3
Low
0.3 – 1.0
Medium
1.0 – 3.0
High
3.0 – 10
Very high
> 10
Extremely high
32
Figure 2.2: Typical irregular samples after point load strength test showing their planes
of failure.
Slake Durability Test
Durability is defined as the resistance of rock to weakening and disintegration
when subjected to short term weathering processes (Fookes et al., 1971). Quine (1993)
described slaking as the swelling or disintegration of a rock by the interaction of clay
minerals with water. The slake durability test was developed by Franklin and Chandra
(1972), recommended by the International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM, 1979),
and standardized by the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM, 2001). The
purpose of this test is to evaluate the influence of alteration on rocks by measuring their
resistance to deterioration and breakdown when subjected to simulated wetting and
drying cycles. The slake durability index (ID2) is a measure of durability and provides
quantitative information on the mechanical behavior of rocks according to the amount of
33
clay and other secondary minerals produced in them due to exposure to climatic
conditions (Fookes et al., 1971). The ID2 is obtained from:
ID2 =
W A − WD
× 100
WB − WD
(2.2)
where WB is the mass of drum plus oven-dried sample before the first cycle, WA is the
mass of drum plus oven-dried sample retained after the second cycle, and WD is the mass
of drum. All samples are classified according to the classification index in Table 2.3 and
2.4. Note that each sample used in the slake durability testing is made of 10 pieces of
rock each weighing 40 to 60 g that were collected from a specific location.
Table 2.3: Slake durability index classification (Franklin and Chandra, 1972).
ID2 (%)
Durability classification
0 – 25
Very low
25 – 50
Low
50 – 75
Medium
75 – 90
High
90 – 95
Very high
95 – 100
Extremely high
Table 2.4: Visual descriptions of the remaining rock pieces after the second cycle.
ID2 (%)
I
Visual description
Pieces remain virtually unchanged
II
Pieces consist of large and small pieces
III
Pieces consist of exclusively small fragments
The slake durability equipment comprises of a 2 mm standard square-mesh
cylinder drum of unobstructed length of 100 mm and diameter of 140 mm, with a solid
34
fixed base. The drum must be able to withstand a temperature of about 110±5o C. The
ends of the drum must be rigid with one of its ends removable. Both the plates and drums
should be strong enough to maintain their shapes when in use. The drum is enclosed in a
trough and is supported along the horizontal axis in a way capable of being filled with
water. In this case distilled water was used to a level of 20 mm below the drum axis
which allows at least 40 mm of unobstructed clearance between the trough and the
bottom of the mesh. A motor designed in such a way to rotate the drum at a speed of 20
rpm constantly to within 5 percent for duration of 10 minutes shown in Figure 2.3.
The rock pieces are brushed to remove all the accumulated dust on it prior to
weighing to determine the actual weight of the rock fragments. The sampling and test
procedure for the slake test is in Standard Operating Procedure, SOP 76 (Viterbo, 2007,
appendix F). The samples are placed in the drum and then weighed and then dried in the
oven for 16 hours to obtain a constant weight. The sample and the drum are left to cool at
room temperature for 20 minutes and weighed. The natural water content of the sample is
then computed. Figure 2.4 shows prepared sample before slake durability test and Figure
2.5 shows an oven dried sample after the second cycle showing bigger and smaller
fragments.
35
Drum comprising of 2
mm standard square
mesh cylinder
Motor
Figure 2.3: slake durability equipment during usage comprising of the test drums and the
motor for rotation.
Figure 2.4: A typical brushed sample, each piece weighing between 40 to 60 g before the
slake durability test is performed.
36
Figure 2.5: A typical sample after slake durability test showing bigger and smaller
pieces of rock fragments after the test.
Other Laboratory Analyses
The laboratory paste tests, direct shear test, and gravimetric moisture contents
were performed at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (NMIMT) using
laboratory procedures (SOPs) established as part of the overall project procedure
documentation. Petrographic analyses (mineralogy, lithology, hydrothermal and
weathering alteration) were performed using a binocular microscope. These analyses
were supplemented by thin section petrography, microprobe, X-ray diffraction analyses,
and whole-rock chemical analyses for confirmation. Clay mineralogy, in terms of the
major clay mineral groups, was determined using standard clay separation techniques and
X-ray diffraction analyses (Hall, 2004; Moore and Reynolds, 1989). This method does
not liberate or measure the amount of clay minerals within the rock fragments.
37
The concentrations of major and trace elements, except for S, SO4, LOI (loss on
ignition), and F, were determined by X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy at New Mexico
State University and Washington State University laboratories. Fluoride concentrations
were determined by ion probe and LOI concentrations by gravimetric methods at
NMIMT. S and SO4 were determined by ALS Chemex Laboratory. The modified ModAn
technique (McLemore et al., 2009) provides a quantitative bulk mineralogy that is
consistent with the petrographic observations, electron microprobe analysis, clay mineral
analysis, and the whole-rock chemistry of the sample. Unlike most normative mineral
analyses, all of the minerals calculated for the bulk mineralogy are in the actual sample
analysis using ModAn. ModAn is a normative calculation that estimates modes “by
applying Gaussian elimination and multiple linear regression techniques to simultaneous
mass balance equations” (Paktunc, 2001), and allows location-specific mineral
compositions to be used. Representative mineral compositions for minerals in the Questa
samples were determined from electron microprobe analysis and used in ModAn for this
study (McLemore et al., 2009). The mineralogy and chemical analyses were performed
on splits of the same sample set that were used in the geotechnical testing and represent
the mineralogy and chemistry of the sample tested by geotechnical methods.
2.4
Results
Point load strength and slake durability tests were performed on rock samples
from the rock piles, drill cores of the mined rock drilled before open-pit mining began,
outcrops, the alteration scars, and the debris flow. The samples from drill cores represent
unweathered rock pile material, since these samples were of the open pit deposit before
38
mining and not exposed to surface weathering. Samples from the alteration scars and
debris flows represent materials that are exposed to weathering processes over the last
4000 years (debris flows) to 10,000 yrs or longer (alteration scars), (Graf, 2008; V. Lueth
et. al, written communication October 2008). The results are summarized in Appendix A
and B1. The methodology in evaluation of point load strength index is discussed in
Appendix B2 of this work. Summary statistics of the point load strength and slake
durability indices are in Tables 2.5 and 2.6 and Appendix B1. The individual analyses for
GHN rock pile are in Viterbo (2007) and Appendix A, Tables A1 and A2 of this work.
Histogram plot of point load strength and slake durability indices for all rock piles
are in Figures 2.6 and 2.7. The individual histogram plot for each rock pile, geologic unit
and analogs and their comparison analysis are in Appendix C.
39
Table 2.5: Summary descriptive statistics of the strength classification for all samples.
Samples from Southwest Hansen (SWH) and Hansen (HAS) alteration scar were too
weak to perform point load test, hence those point load test results are not included in this
table. This was probably a result of the highly fractured nature of the samples collected
from these areas.
Location
Statistics
Point Load Strength
Index
All rock piles
(GHN, Sugar
Shack South,
Sugar Shack
West, Middle,
Spring Gulch)
No. of Samples
Mean (MPa)
Standard Deviation (MPa)
Minimum (MPa)
Maximum (MPa)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (MPa)
Standard Deviation (MPa)
Minimum (MPa)
Maximum (MPa)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (MPa)
Standard Deviation (MPa)
Minimum (MPa)
Maximum (MPa)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (MPa)
Standard Deviation (MPa)
Minimum (MPa)
Maximum (MPa)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (MPa)
Standard Deviation (MPa)
Minimum (MPa)
Maximum (MPa)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (MPa)
Standard Deviation (MPa)
Minimum (MPa)
Maximum (MPa)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
59
3.8
1.7
0.6
8.2
44.7
19
3.7
1.7
1.3
6.9
45.9
8
3.6
1.7
1.4
6.5
47.2
3
2.6
0.7
1.8
3.1
26.9
12
4.0
1.0
2.6
6.0
25.0
4
2.8
0.8
1.7
3.8
28.6
All unweathered
(drill core)
andesite samples
All unweathered
(drill core) aplite
(intrusive)
samples
All unweathered
(drill core)
rhyolite (Amalia)
Debris Flow
Alteration Scars
(Questa Pit)
40
Table 2.6: Summary descriptive statistics of the durability classification for all samples.
Location
Statistics
Slake Durability Index
All rock piles (GHN,
Sugar Shack South,
Sugar Shack West,
Middle, Spring
Gulch)
No. of Samples
Mean (%)
Standard Deviation (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (%)
Standard Deviation (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (%)
Standard Deviation (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (%)
Standard Deviation (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (%)
Standard Deviation (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (%)
Standard Deviation (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (%)
Standard Deviation (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
132
96.4
3.4
80.9
99.5
3.5
19
95.1
4.0
83.7
99.1
4.2
16
95.5
3.0
88.9
99.5
3.1
8
95.7
2.6
92.2
99.1
2.7
3
93.0
3.6
88.9
95.8
3.9
18
98.4
0.9
96.1
99.6
0.9
24
89.2
9.2
64.5
98.5
10.3
All unweathered
(drill core) andesite
samples
All weathered (out
crop) and
unweathered (drill
core) rhyolite
(Amalia) and aplite
samples
All unweathered
(drill core) Aplite
(intrusive)
All unweathered
(drill core) rhyolite
(Amalia)
Debris Flow
Alteration Scars
(Questa Pit, Hason,
Goat Hill, Straight
Creek scars)
41
All Rock Piles
14
12
Counts
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
Point Load Strength Index (MPa)
Figure 2.6: Histogram plot of point load strength index at the rock piles location (GHN,
SSS, SSW, MID and SPR). Number of samples is 59.
All Rock Piles
80
70
Counts
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
70
80
90
100
Slake Durability Index %
Figure 2.7: Histogram plot of slake durability index at the rock piles location (GHN,
SSS, SSW, MID and SPR). Number of samples is 132.
42
2.5
Discussion
Samples from the GHN rock pile are relatively similar in slake durability and
point load indices regardless of the geologic layer and location within the GHN rock pile.
However, some samples located in the outer edge of the rock pile (Units C and I)
disintegrated more and presented lower durability than similar rocks around the same
area (Fig. 2.8). This suggests that for some, but not all samples, point load strength index
and slake durability index of the GHN rock pile decreased as the degree of weathering
increased. However, in general, the point load and slake indices of rock fragments are
still quite high, and suggest that 25-40 years of weathering have not substantially affected
the strength properties of these rock pile materials (Fig. 2.8, Tables B7 to B10 in
Appendix B; Viterbo, 2007; Gutierrez et al., 2008). There are similar results concerning
friction angle and slake durability index by Gutierrez et al. (2008), where lower friction
angles were obtained from some but not all weathered samples from the outer edge of the
GHN rock pile, than from samples from the interior of GHN rock pile.
43
Figure 2.8: Scatter plot of Slake Durability Index and Point Load Index vs. distance from
outer edge of GHN rock pile. The weathering intensity was confirmed by petrographic
analyses, especially textures, as described by McLemore et al. (2008a). See Figures 1.2
and1.3 for location of trenches and layers in GHN where samples were obtained.
Appendix B includes a summary of the description of these samples.
The slake durability indices from the various rock piles range from 80.9 to 99.5 %
and the point load strength indices range from 0.6 to 8.2 MPa (Tables 2.5 and 2.6; Tables
B7 and B8 in Appendix B). Samples from Sugar Shack South and Spring Gulch rock
piles have a lower average of point load index than the other rock piles (Fig. 2.9; Table
B9 in Appendix B); more samples from these rock piles are needed to determine if this is
significant. Figures 2.9 and 2.10 show the range of point load strength and slake
durability indices and average values of the various sample locations at the Questa mine.
44
9
POINT LOAD STRENGHT INDEX (MPa)
8
7
6
5
4.3
4
4.5
Very high
4.3
4.0
3.6
3
3.0
2.8
2.2
2
High
1
Extremely low to medium
0
0
Goathill
1 North (31,1.85)
2
Spring Gulch (7,1.16)
PIT (30,1.64)
3
Averages
4
5
Sugar Shack South (8,0.79)
Debris Flow (12,0.99)
6
Middle
7 (2,0.12) 8
Sugar Shack West (11,1.15)
Alteration Scars (4,0.83)
9
LOCATION
Figure 2.9: Point load strength index values for the rock piles, alteration scars and debris
flows. The average point load strength index for each location is shown with a red circle.
The number of samples for each location and the standard deviation are shown in
parentheses. PIT samples are unweathered drill core samples of andesite, intrusive
(aplite) and rhyolite (Amalia Tuff) of various hydrothermal alteration intensities. See
Figure 1.2 for location of rock piles. See Figures 1.2 and 1.3 for location of trenches and
geologic units in GHN where samples were obtained. Appendix B summarizes the
location and description of these samples.
45
SLAKE DURABILITY INDEX (%)
100
96.9
96.1
95
98.4
97.4
96.1
96.3
95.3
Extremely high durability
90
89.2
85
Very high durability
80
75
70
65
High durability
60
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Goathill North (76,3.19)
Middle (3,1.10)
Spring Gulch (8,5.15)
Sugar Shack South (30,2.97)
Averages
Sugar Shack West (15,4.05)
PIT (30,3.58)
Debris Flow (18,0.93)
Alteration Scars (24,9.22)
9
LOCATION
Figure 2.10: Slake durability index values for the rock piles, alteration scars, and debris
flows. The average slake durability index for each location is shown with a red circle.
The number of samples and the standard deviation for each location are shown in
parentheses. PIT samples are unweathered drill core samples of andesite, intrusive
(aplite) and rhyolite (Amalia Tuff) of various hydrothermal alteration intensities. See
Figures 1.2 and 1.3 for location of rock piles and location of trenches and geologic units
in GHN where samples were obtained. Appendix B summarizes the location and
description of these samples.
Figure 2.11 shows the plots of different hydrothermal alterations verses slake and
point load indices. The point load values of drill core andesite samples (unweathered
samples) range from 1.3 to 6.9 MPa (Table 2.5), with all samples classified with high and
very high strength (Table 2.2); the rhyolite (Amalia Tuff) samples have slightly lower
point load indices (Fig. 2.12). The slake durability values for samples of relatively
weathered and unweathered aplite and rhyolite (Amalia Tuff) collected from outcrops
and drill core throughout the area, range from 88.9 to 99.5%, with all samples classified
46
as having high to extremely high durability (Table 2.6). There is no significant difference
in average slake durability and point load indices between different lithologies and
different alteration assemblages (Figs. 2.11, 2.12 and 2.13).
Figure 2.11: Variation in slake index, point load and alteration (QSP, Propylitic and
Argillic) of the Questa rock materials. See Figure 1.2 for location of rock piles where
samples were obtained. Appendix B summarizes the location and description of these
samples.
47
8
POINT LOAD STRENGTH INDEX (MPa)
7
6
5
4
3.7
3.6
3
2.6
2
1
0
0.0
Amalia(3,0.7)
1.0
Andesite(19,1.70)
2.0
Intrusive(8,
1.73)
3.0
Average
LITHOLOGY
Figure 2.12: Point load strength index values for different lithologies (Amalia, Andesite
and Intrusive) which are drill core samples. The average point load strength index for
each lithology is shown with a red circle. The number of the samples and the standard
deviation are shown in the parentheses. See Figure 1.2 for location of open pit. Appendix
B summarizes the location and description of these samples.
100
96.3
95.1
SLAKE DURABILITY INDEX (%)
94.1
90
80
70
0
0.5
Amalia(6,
3.1)
1
1.5 3.4)
Andesite(19,
2
2.5
Intrusive(10,2.7)
3
Average
3.5
LITHOLOGY
Figure 2.13: Slake durability index values for different lithologies (Amalia, Andesite and
Intrusive) which include the drill core and outcrop samples. The average slake durability
index for each lithology is shown with a red circle. The number of samples for each
location and standard deviation are shown in the parentheses. See Figure 1.2 for location
of open pit. Appendix B summarizes the location and description of these samples.
48
The slake durability and point load indices of debris flow (average slake
durability index of 98.4% and point load index of 4.0 MPa) and the alteration scar
samples (average slake durability index of 89.2% and point load index of 2.8 MPa) are
relatively similar to the corresponding values of rock-pile samples (Tables 2.5, 2.6; Figs.
2.9, 2.10). Note that the debris flows and alteration scars were exposed to weathering
longer than the rock pile material.
There are no strong correlations between point load and slake durability with
mineralogy or chemistry (Fig. 2.14 and Appendix B).
49
Figure 2.14: Variations between slake durability index, point load index, mineralogy,
and chemistry. The mineralogy and chemical analyses were performed on splits of the
same sample set that were used in the geotechnical testing and represent the mineralogy
and chemistry of the sample tested by geotechnical methods. See Figure 1.2 for location
of rock piles. Appendix B summarizes the location and description of these samples.
Figure 2.15 shows a scatter plot of slake durability versus point load strength
indices of the Questa Mine materials. Samples with low values of point load index also
tend to have low values of slake durability index but not all samples (Fig. 2.15). Notice
that even though there is a positive correlation between the point load index and the slake
durability index, this correlation is not strong.
50
The friction angle of the fine-grained soil matrix of samples collected, along with the
rock fragments tested for slake durability and point load indices, was obtained using a 2inch laboratory shear box (Gutierrez, 2006; Gutierrez et al., 2008). Shear tests were
conducted on the air-dried samples. There are no strong correlations between friction
angle and point load and slake durability indices of the Questa materials (Fig. 2.16).
9
y = 0.2x - 16.6
R² = 0.2
8
Point Load Strength Index (MPa)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
80
90
100
Slake Durability Index %
Figure 2.15: Variation in slake index and point load index of the Questa rock materials.
51
Figure 2.16: Variations between slake durability index, point load index, friction angle,
and residual friction angle. The friction angle was determined on the fine-grained matrix
from the same location as the samples tested for slake durability and point load, which
were determined on larger rock fragments. See Figure 1.2 for location of rock piles. See
Figure 1.3 for location of trenches in GHN where samples were obtained. Appendix B
summarizes the location and description of these samples.
Some weathered samples from the edge of GHN, other Questa rock piles, and analog
materials, show lower slake durability and point load indices than unweathered material;
but not all weathered samples have lower slake durability and point load indices. The
weathered samples exhibited a change in color, low paste pH, presence of jarosite,
gypsum, iron oxide minerals and Fe- soluble salts (often as cementing minerals), and low
abundance to absence of calcite, pyrite, and epidote in weathered samples, tarnish or
coatings of pyrite surfaces, dissolution textures of minerals, and chemical classification
as potential acid-forming materials using acid base accounting methods (as described
above and in Appendix B). Some samples with low paste pH, but not all, from the edge
52
of GHN, other Questa rock piles, and analog materials show lower slake durability and
point load indices (Fig. 2.17). Paste pH is an indication of weathering, as discussed
above, with lower paste pH suggesting more weathered material (McLemore et al.,
2008a). Figure 2.18 shows the variation of point load and slake indices with the simple
weathering index (SWI). No definite correlation is observed in this figure. This could
indicate that the main reason for observed variations of slakes durability and point load
indices are the pre-mining alteration, and that the weathering effects have been so far of
less significance. Comparison of the slake durability and point load indices of the
weathered (rock piles) and unweathered samples (samples from drill logs) confirms that
the overall intensity of the weathering in the last 25-40 years has not been significant to
result in noticeable decrease the strength of the Questa rock-pile materials.
53
Figure 2.17: Variation in slake index, point load index and paste pH of the Questa rock
materials. See Figure 1.2 for location of rock piles. See Figures 1.2 and 1.3 for location of
trenches and geologic unites in GHN where samples were obtained. Appendix B
summarizes the location and description of these samples. The upper part of the figure is
for the all the other rock pile location and the analogs except the GHN whereas the lower
part is GHN.
54
Figure 2.18: Variation in slake index, point load and simple weathering indices (SWI) of
the Questa rock materials. See Figure 1.2 for location of rock piles. See Figures 1.2 and
1.3 for location of trenches in GHN and geologic units where samples were obtained.
Appendix B summarizes the location and description of these samples. The upper part of
the figure is for the all the other rock pile location and the analogs excluding the GHN
whereas the lower part is GHN.
2.6
Conclusions
The point load indices are medium to very high according to the point load
strength index classification (Fig. 2.9). The slake durability indices from the Questa rock
piles are high to extremely high according to the slake durability index classification (Fig.
2.10). Samples from the GHN rock-pile are similar in slake durability and point load
indices regardless of geologic layer and location within the rock pile, except that some,
but not all samples located in the outer, weathered edge of the rock pile (Units C and I)
55
that are weaker and have lower slake durability and point load indices. There is no
significant difference in slake durability or point load indices between different
lithologies or hydrothermal alterations, except the rhyolite samples that have slightly
lower point load indices (Figs. 2.12 and 2.13). The slake durability and point load test
results indicate that the debris flow and the alteration scar samples are relatively similar
to the range in values obtained for the rock-pile samples. The debris flows and alteration
scars represent the more weathered material that have occurred over thousands to
millions of years. Some weathered samples from the edge of GHN, other Questa rock
piles, and analog materials, show lower slake durability and point load indices than
unweathered material, but not all weathered samples have lower slake durability and
point load indices. There are no strong correlations between point load and slake
durability with mineralogy or chemistry (Fig. 2.14). Samples with low values of point
load index also tend to have low values of slake durability index, but not all samples (Fig.
2.15). A comparison statistic was conducted on the unweathered drill core samples with
the GHN rock-pile and the other rock-piles combined excluding GHN rock-pile
(Appendix C). There are no strong correlations between friction angle and point load and
slake indices of the Questa materials (Fig. 2.16). GHN rock pile samples have high
durability and strength even after having undergone hydrothermal alteration and blasting
prior to deposition and after potential exposure to weathering for about 25-40 years.
Collectively, these results suggest that future weathering (< 1000 years) will not
substantially decrease the strength indices of rock fragments of the rock piles.
56
3.0
3.1
CHARACTERIZATION OF QUESTA DEBRIS FLOWS
Introduction
The purpose of the Questa Rock Pile Weathering and Stability Project is to
develop a model to identify and assess conditions and processes occurring in existing
rock piles, especially related to the physical, chemical and mineralogical composition and
weathering of, rock pile materials at the Questa mine. The key question to be addressed
is, “Will the rock piles become gravitationally unstable over time?” One component of
this investigation is to estimate what changes in these conditions and processes, if any,
have occurred since construction of the rock piles, and thereby to extrapolate what future
changes might occur in these conditions and processes. As a result, it should be possible
to obtain the information necessary and sufficient to provide a scientific basis for
determining the effect of weathering on the geotechnical behavior of the rock piles as a
function of time and degree of weathering.
The extent of weathering in the rock piles is limited by their short exposure
history. One approach to determine the future changes of slope stability of the rock piles
is to examine analog materials for their composition, stability and strength. Analog
materials are from sites in the vicinity of the Questa mine that are similar in composition
and weathering process as the rock piles, but are older than the rock piles. Processes
operating in the natural analogs share many similarities to those in the rock pile, although
certain aspects of the physical and chemical system are different (Graf, 2008; Ludington
et al., 2004). The debris flows in the Questa area are identified as natural analogs for
57
future weathering of the rock piles, because they have undergone hydrothermal alteration,
weathering, and erosion since they were formed and could represent the future
weathering of the rock piles. The current approach, tests the geotechnical behavior of
samples across a range of weathering states that are defined by petrology, mineralogy,
and chemistry for samples collected from the existing rock piles and analog weathering
sites in the Questa-Red River area.
Hence, a debris flow profile was studied to determine if it can serve as a physical,
mineralogical and chemical analog or proxy to weathering and diagenesis of the Questa
rock piles, as well as to determine the weathering products of the debris flows and how
they relate to the point load strength index, slake durability index, and the friction angle
of the debris flows. The purpose of this study was 1) to describe the debris flow profile,
2) to determine if the cementation of the debris flows is similar to cementation found, or
expected to be found in the future, within the Questa rock piles, and 3) to determine how
cementation varies along the debris flow profile.
3.2
Definitions
The debris flows near the Questa mine are naturally occurring sedimentary
deposits that consist of similar lithologies as the Questa rock piles (Table 3.1;
hydrothermally altered andesite, rhyolite (Amalia Tuff), granitic and aplite intrusions).
The debris flows were formed by a mixture of sediment and water that flowed downhill
in a natural drainage, whereas the rock piles were formed by end dumping of relatively
dry, blasted rock material over the edge of a slope (McLemore et al., 2008a). Since the
58
stabilization of the debris flow it has been subjected to similar weathering processes as
the rock piles.
Weathering is the alteration that involves disintegration of rocks by physical, chemical,
and/or biological processes that result in the reduction of grain size, changes in cohesion
or cementation, and changes in mineralogical composition (McLemore et. al., 2008a).
According to the AGI Geologic Glossary (Neuendorf et al., 2005), weathering is “the
destructive process or group of processes by which earthy and rocky materials on
exposure to atmospheric agents at or near the earth’s surface are changed in color,
texture, composition firmness, of form with little or no transport of the loosen or altered
material; specifically the physical disintegration and chemical decomposition of rock that
produce an in-situ mantle of waste.” Many scientists study these processes in terms of
geologic time, occurring over thousands to millions of years. Weathering is simply the
consequence of exposing rocks to the conditions at the Earth’s surface as a result of fairly
low temperatures, low pressures, organic activity, and chemically active substances such
as water and the gases of the atmosphere. However, weathering in rock piles, including
the Questa project, is a study of weathering in engineering time, i.e. tens to hundreds of
years (<1000 yrs), where short-term weathering processes are more important than longterm processes (Fookes et al., 1988; Geological Society Engineering Group Working
Party, 1995). Weathering profiles can provide the link between the short-term,
engineering time scale and the long-term, and geologic time scale.
Hydrothermal alteration is the change in original composition of rock in place by
hydrothermal (warm to hot) solutions during or after mineralization. In the Questa study,
hydrothermal alteration refers to pre-mining conditions. This includes hypogene
59
(primary) and supergene (secondary) alteration. Hypogene alteration occurred during the
formation of the ore deposit by upwelling, hydrothermal fluids. Supergene alteration is a
low-temperature natural weathering of the ore deposit that occurred near the Earth’s
surface before mining.
3.3
Background
A debris flow is defined as a mixture of sediment and water that flows in a
manner as if it was a continuous fluid driven by gravity, and it attains large mobility from
the large void space saturated with water or slurry (Tamotsu, 2007). There has been
extensive work on debris flows because of their disastrous nature, but very few debris
flow studies include slake durability and point load strength tests hence this study. Dick
and Shakoor (1995) stated that, debris flows are the likely mode of failure in mudrocks of
medium to low durability and tend to occur when developed regolith fails during heavy
rains and wet periods. Viterbo (2007) showed that slake durability and point load test
values indicate that, the rock fragments from the Goat Hill North (GHN) rock pile are
still quite strong even after being highly fractured and altered before being blasted, then
emplaced in the pile and subsequently weathered. This study is concentrated on the Goat
Hill (Goat Hill Gulch) debris flow, which contains material that is mineralogically and
chemically similar to the GHN rock pile and can be used as a proxy for long-term
weathering in the GHN rock pile.
The debris flows consist of similar rock lithologies and hydrothermal alteration,
and have been subjected to the same weathering environment as the rock piles. The
characteristics of the debris flows, alteration scars, and Questa rock piles are listed in
60
Table 3.1. There are important differences between each of these three types of
landforms; however, the majority of the parameters are similar between each category of
landform. The most significant difference between the rock piles and the debris flows is
the mechanism for deposition. The debris flows are deposited under saturated or nearsaturated conditions, which could lead to more sorting of particle sizes and more water
retention than the Questa rock piles, which were deposited under dry conditions.
The debris flows represent landforms that formed during the time between the
formation of relatively young Questa rock piles and the alteration scars of the Red River
valley. The exact ages of the debris flows are difficult to determine due to the episodic
nature of debris flow development. However, the estimated age of the debris flows in the
Red River area are as old as 100,000 years. A radiocarbon isotope date of a charcoal
sample from within the debris flow was determined to have an age of approximately 4917
years before present (Lueth et al., 2008). The charcoal appears to have formed during a
period of time where the debris flow was stable long enough to form a paleosoil, with
associated ponded water, to produce a charcoal layer (Lueth et al., 2008). The debris
flow cannot be older than the Goat Hill alteration scar, since the debris flow is composed
of material that was derived from the alteration scar, therefore the maximum age of the
debris flow cannot be more than 1.48 Ma (Lueth et al., 2008). The debris flow is older
than the open pit mine, because the mine administration buildings are built on it.
Point load strength and slake durability indices can provide a measure of rock
fragment strength. Point load and slake durability can indicate the degree of rock
fragment weathering by relating strength to the intensity of weathering; the strength of
rock fragments is related to the frictional resistance of the materials. The friction angle of
61
rock pile material is an important parameter in the characterization of rock pile stability,
because slope failure largely depends on this parameter.
Table 3.1: Index parameters for the rock-pile and analog materials QSP=quartz-sericitepyrite. SP=poorly-graded sand, GP=poorly-graded gravel, SM=silty sand, SC=clayey
sand, GW=well-graded gravel, GC=clayey gravel, GP-GC=poorly-graded gravel with
clay, GP-GM=poorly-graded gravel with silt, GW-GC=well-graded gravel with clay,
SW-SC=well-graded sand with clay, SP-SC=poorly-graded sand with clay.
Feature
Rock Pile
Alteration Scar
Debris Flow
Rock types
Andesite
Rhyolite
Aplite Porphyry Intrusion
GP-GC, GC, GP-GM, GW,
GW-GC, SP-SC, SC, SWSC, SM
0.2-46
Mean 7.5 Std Dev. 6
No of Samples=89
1-24
Mean 10 Std Dev. 4
No of Samples=390
1.6-9.9
Mean 4.8 std dev 1.9
No of samples=1368
Low to high
0-14%
(mean 1.0%; std dev. 1.2%,
No of samples=1098)
Andesite
Rhyolite
Aplite Porphyry Intrusion
GP-GC, GP
Andesite
Rhyolite
Aplite Porphyry Intrusion
GP, SP, GP-GC
0.6-20
Mean 5.2 Std Dev. 4
No of Samples=18
1-20
Mean 9 Std Dev. 4
No of Samples=48
2.0-8.3
Mean 4.3 std dev 1.6
No of samples=215
Low to high
0-11%
(mean 0.7%, std dev 1.8%,
No of samples=62)
Unified soil
classification
(USCS)
% fines
Water content (%)
Paste pH
Pyrite content (%)
Dry density kg/m3
Particle shape
Plasticity Index
(%)
Degree of
chemical
cementation
(visual
observation)
Slake durability
index (%)
Point Load index
(MPa)
Peak friction
angle (degrees),
2-inch shear box
(NMIMT data)
Average cohesion
GP-GC, GP
1400-2400
Mean 1800 Std Dev. 140
No of Samples=153
Angular to subangular to
subrounded
0.2-20
Mean 10 Std Dev. 5
No of Samples=134
Low to moderate (sulfates,
Iron oxides)
1500-2300
Mean 1900 Std Dev. 210
No of Samples=13
Subangular
0.3-6
Mean 1.8 Std Dev. 2 No
of Samples=12
1-29
Mean 5 Std Dev. 4
No of Samples=36
2.0-6.9
Mean 4.5 std dev 1.3
No of samples=58
Low to medium
0-0.2%
(mean 0.03%, std dev
0.06%,
No of samples=22)
1300-2200
Mean 1900 Std Dev. 340
No of Samples=10
Subangular to subrounded
5-25
Mean 12 Std Dev. 5
No of Samples=30
Moderate to high
(sulfates, Iron oxides)
3-14
Mean 7 Std Dev. 3
No of Samples=18
Moderate to high
(sulfates, Iron oxides)
80.9-99.5
Mean 96.6 Std Dev. 3.1
No of Samples=132
0.6-8.2
Mean 3.8 Std Dev. 1.7
No of Samples=59
35.3-49.3
Mean 42.2 Std Dev. 2.9 No
of Samples=99
64.5-98.5
Mean 89.2 Std Dev. 9.2
No of Sample=24
1.7-3.8
Mean 2.8 Std Dev. 0.8
No of Samples=4
33.4-54.3
Mean 40.7 Std Dev. 4.8 No
of Samples=22
96.1-99.6
Mean 98.4 Std Dev. 0.9
No of Samples=18
2.6-6
Mean 4 Std Dev. 1
No of Samples=12
39.2-50.1
Mean 44.3 Std Dev. 3.9
No of Samples=12
36.9-46.1
Mean 41.4 Std Dev. 2.5
No of Samples=22
0-25.9
12.1-23.9
31.4-46.1
Not determined
62
Colluvium and
weathered bedrock
Andesite
Rhyolite
3-40
Mean 20 Std Dev. 11
No of Samples=30
9-26
Mean 14 Std Dev. 3
No of Samples=13
2.4-8.6
Mean 3.8 std dev 1.3
No of samples=45
Low to high
0-5.1%
(mean 0.4%, std dev
1.1%,
No of samples 26)
2200
No of Sample=1
Subangular to
subrounded
5-23
Mean 13 Std Dev. 5
No of Samples=17
Moderate to high
(sulfates, Iron oxides)
93-98.5
Mean 95.7 Std Dev. 1.7
No. of Samples= 9
Not determined
Feature
Rock Pile
Alteration Scar
Debris Flow
(kPa), in-situ
shear tests
Mean 9.6 Std dev 7.3
No of samples=20
Mean 18.1
No of samples=2
Mean 38.8
No of samples=2
3.4
Colluvium and
weathered bedrock
Sampling and analytical methods
A detailed mineralogical, chemical, and geotechnical study of a profile in the
Goat Hill debris flow along NM Highway 38 documents the changes in weathering
within this depositional environment. Samples were collected within the debris flow at
different elevations to examine the different degrees of weathering, diagenesis, including
cementation, and alteration with depth along the profile (Fig. 3.1). The samples were
characterized using several different analytical methods that were similar to those used to
examine the Questa rock piles. Point load, slake durability, and laboratory direct shear
tests were performed on the samples, and sampling procedures (Viterbo, 2007; SOP 24),
descriptions and analytical procedures for soil profiles were used (URS Corporation,
2003; Smith and Beckie, 2003). A standardized protocol was followed after each sample
was taken. Each sample was clearly identified and a chain of custody process was
followed to assure that all samples were transported to the laboratory, analyzed, and the
results sent back to New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources (NMBGMR)
at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (NMIMT). The samples were
transported from the field to NMBGMR and stored in a locked trailer until they could be
analyzed. Specific details for quality control and quality assurance are described in the
project SOPs (Table 3.2).
Samples for chemical analyses were crushed in a jaw crusher and pulverized by a
tungsten-carbide disc grinder to a particle size of <35 μm. Each sample was homogenized
63
at each crushing step by cone and quarter method. The samples were then sent to the
laboratories for analyses. NMBGMR internal (waste rock pile, rhyolite, basalt) and
commercially certified standards and duplicates of selected samples were submitted blind
to the laboratories with each sample batch of 25 samples to assure analytical quality;
NMBGMR has archived a split of all remaining samples for future studies. Laboratory
analyses were performed on the samples according to project SOPs, summarized in Table
3.2. Petrographic analyses (mineralogy, lithology, hydrothermal alteration) were
performed on both the soil matrix and rock fragments using a binocular microscope;
these analyses were supplemented by thin section analyses, microprobe analyses, X-ray
diffraction (XRD) analyses, and whole-rock chemical analyses using X-ray fluorescence
(XRF). Clay mineralogy, in terms of the major clay mineral groups, was performed on
the complete sample (i.e. both matrix and rock fragments) using standard clay separation
techniques and XRD analyses of the clay mineral separate on an oriented glass slide
(Hall, 2004; Moore and Reynolds, 1989). However, this method does not liberate or
measure the amount of clay minerals within the rock fragments. The concentrations of
major and trace elements of the complete sample, except S, SO4, C, LOI (loss on
ignition), and F were obtained by XRF spectroscopy at the New Mexico State University
and Washington State University laboratories. F concentrations were determined by ion
probe at NMIMT and LOI concentrations were determined by gravimetric methods at
NMIMT. Leco Furnace determined total S and C, and SO4 was determined by sulfate
sulfur-carbonate leach by ALS Chemex. S as sulfide was determined by subtracting SO4
from the total S.
64
Table 3.2: Summary of sample preparation for specific laboratory analyses for samples
collected from the weathering profile. XRF–X-ray fluorescence analyses, XRD–X-ray
diffraction analysis, slake durability tests, point load tests.
Laboratory analysis
Type of sample
Whole-rock chemical
analysis (XRF, S/SO4)
Collected in the field
in separate bag
Crushed and
pulverized
Whole-rock chemical
analysis (ICP)
Collected in the field
in separate bag
Atterberg Limits
Bulk sample
collected in the field
Crushed, pulverized,
and dissolved in a
liquid for analysis
Sample sieved to
<0.425 mm
Direct Shear Test
(friction angle)
Bulk sample
collected in the field
Sample sieved to
<4.75 mm (for 2 inch
shear test)
Particle-size analysis
Bulk sample
collected in the field
Sample sieved each
size fraction weighed
Paste pH and paste
conductivity
Collected in the field,
used split from
chemistry sample or
gravimetric sample
Uncrushed, typically
smaller than gravel
size material used
Gravimetric moisture
content
Collected in the field
in a sealed metal
canister
Collected in the field,
used split from
chemistry sample
Uncrushed, typically
smaller than gravel
size material used
Uncrushed, typically
smaller than gravel
size material used,
thin sections made of
selected rock
fragments
Uncrushed, generally
2 splits; rock
fragments and soil
matrix
Crushed
Petrographic analyses
Microprobe analyses
Collected in the field
or split from
chemistry sample
X-ray diffraction
(XRD) analyses
(including remaining
pyrite analysis)
Clay mineralogy
analyses
Used split from
chemistry sample
Used split from
chemistry sample
Sample Preparation
Uncrushed, typically
smaller than gravel
size material used,
thin sections made of
selected rock
65
Method of obtaining
accuracy and precision
Use reference standards
and duplicates and
triplicates
Use reference standards
and duplicates and
triplicates
Use duplicate analysis,
compared to other
results performed by
consultant companies
Use duplicate analysis,
compared to other
results performed by
consultant companies
Use duplicate analysis,
compared to other
results performed by
consultant companies
Use duplicates,
compared with field
measurements using
Kelway instrument
(SOP 63), compare to
mineralogical analysis
Use duplicates
SOP
Selected samples were
analyzed by outside
laboratory
24
Use reference standards
26
Compared to detailed
analysis by electron
microprobe
27,
34
Use duplicate analysis,
compared to other
results performed by
consultant companies,
compared to detailed
29
8
8,
30,
31
54
50
33
11
40
Laboratory analysis
Point Load tests
Slake durability tests
3.5
Type of sample
Rock fragments
tested sizes were
around 50 ± 35mm
with the ratio of D/W
between 0.3 and 1.0
Rock fragments 40
and 60 g
(approximately 4-10
cm in dimension)
Sample Preparation
fragments, clay
separation obtained
by settling in a
beaker of DI water
none
The rock pieces are
brushed to remove all
the accumulated dust
on it prior to
weighing.
Method of obtaining
accuracy and precision
analysis by electron
microprobe
SOP
Multiple testing and
average is determined.
77
Duplicate tests
76
Description of the debris flow profile
Samples were collected from the debris flows from different beds. The sizes of
the samples ranged from fine silt to boulders, sub-angular to sub-rounded in shape, and
some of the samples were well graded, while others were poorly graded gravel. The
colors were mostly brown with the exception of one sample that was light reddish brown
and the cementation ranged from moderately to strong cemented (Table 3.3). The profile
studied is not a typical weathered profile since there is no systematic variation in the
composition of the samples collected from the profile, indicating that the debris flow was
formed in several different events with slightly different sources.
The samples were collected from within 57 ft of UTM easting 452331 and
northing 4059891. Figure 1.2 shows the location of the debris flow and Figure 3.1 shows
a view of the profile looking straight at the debris flow on the highway 38. Table 3.3
shows the description of samples collected. In-situ tests were conducted at the surface of
this debris flow and those samples and test were described by Boakye (2008) and
McLemore et al. (2008b). Nunoo (2009) and Nunoo et al. (2009) also described detailed
66
studies on the particle shape and geotechnical characterization of a sample from this
locality.
Figure 3.1: Photograph of Goat Hill debris flow. Boxes show location of collected
samples. Collected samples consist of a bulk grab of rock material stored in 5 gallon
buckets and includes matrix (soil) and rock fragments.
Table 3.3: Description of the debris flow profile.
Depth
interval
(ft)
Grain
Size
Color
Grain angularity
Sedimentary
structure
Description
Cementation
Sample
collected
2
Boulders
to clay
Brown
Subangularsubrounded
Massive
Well graded
Moderate
MIN-GFA0001
3
Boulder
to clay
Brown
subangular
Massive
Well graded
Moderate
MIN-GFA0003
6.4
Boulder
to clay
Brown
Subangularsubrouned
Massive
Well graded
Strong
MIN-GFA0005
12
Gravel
to fine
silt
Brown
subangular
Massive
Poorly graded
gravel
Strong
MIN-GFA0006
13
Cobble
to fine
silt
Angular to
subangular
Massive
Poorly graded
gravel
Moderate
MIN-GFA0007
27
Coarse
gravel to
sandy
Angular to
subangular
Massive
Well
MIN-GFA0009
Light
redish
brown
67
3.6
Results
Table 3.4 is a summary result of the geological and geotechnical parameters for
the profile. The results of the chemical and mineralogical compositions of the samples are
in Tables 3.5 and 3.6, respectively.
Table 3.4: Geological and geotechnical parameters of samples collected from the debris
flow profile. Samples MIN-GFA-0006 and MIN-GFA-0007 did not contain rock
fragments but rather soils materials due to the nature of the samples, point load and slake
durability tests were not performed on them.
Sample
Paste pH
Paste Conductivity
(mS/cm)
Water Content %
Geotechnical
Parameters
Slake Index %
Point Load MPa
Dry Density g/cm3
Friction Angle
(degrees)
Residual Friction
Angle (degrees)
Atterberg Limit
Liquid Limit %
Plastic Limit %
Plastic Index %
Particle Size
Distribution
Gravel %
Sand %
Silt %
Clay %
Fines %
D10, mm
D30, mm
D50, mm
D60, mm
MIN-GFA0001
3.20
0.44
MIN-GFA0003
3.87
0.14
MIN-GFA0005
3.24
0.22
MIN-GFA0006
3.90
0.13
MIN-GFA0007
3.55
0.19
MIN-GFA0009
3.58
0.21
1.1
4.4
13.2
13.2
5.8
7.0
98.4
2.8
2.19
50.0
99.5
6.0
1.33
45.7
98.7
2.6
1.51
39.2
1.51
40.3
1.17
44.5
98.6
3.8
2.09
45.2
37.8
33.8
34.9
34.8
36.0
35.5
25.5
18.8
6.8
24.6
21.6
3.1
24.8
18.7
6.2
28.2
19.3
8.9
69.6
30.1
0.3
65.3
33.7
0.9
69.3
29.9
0.9
45.5
51.7
2.8
28.2
70.0
1.8
59.5
39.3
1.2
0.3
0.9
4.8
20.0
23.0
0.9
0.9
4.0
10.0
15.0
0.9
0.7
4.5
18.0
30.0
2.8
0.2
1.4
4.0
5.8
1.8
0.3
1.1
1.2
0.8
3.2
6.2
8.6
68
3.6
Table 3.5: Chemical composition of samples collected from debris flow profile. Oxides
are in weight percent and trace elements are in parts per million.
Sample
SiO2
TiO2
Al2O3
FeOT
MnO
MgO
CaO
Na2O
K2O
P2O5
S
SO4
S/SO4
C
LOI
Total
Ba
Rb
Sr
Pb
Th
U
Zr
Nb
Y
Sc
V
Ni
Cu
Zn
Ga
Cr
F
La
Ce
Nd
MIN-GFA0001
72.65
0.50
13.17
2.22
0.22
0.79
0.1
0.62
4.31
0.10
0.05
0.21
0.24
0.02
3.46
98.65
642
149
133
70
13
5
215
24.00
32.00
5.00
61
5
24
25
20
42
1281
47
95
41
MIN-GFA0003
70.88
0.46
12.98
3.26
0.39
1.23
0.71
1.07
3.53
0.18
0.09
0.07
1.29
0.03
2.91
98.11
822
104
280
32
8
6
172
16.90
23.00
6.00
62
14
37
68
17
43
1045
29
57
25
MIN-GFA0005
73.70
0.39
13.2
1.92
0.02
0.68
0.02
0.46
4.19
0.09
0.05
0.25
0.20
0.01
3.68
98.86
613
149
138
103
12
4.5
240.50
25.50
40.00
4.00
46
1
17
21
22
27
1416
50
98
41.5
69
MIN-GFA0006
70.03
0.51
12.97
3.81
0.04
1.27
0.56
1.65
3.41
0.19
0.05
0.17
0.29
0.08
3.95
99.06
871
104
265
51
8
4.00
189.00
16.20
21.00
7.00
73
12
45
50
53
1116
34
63
24
MIN-GFA0007
73.95
0.41
12.92
2.06
0.02
0.67
0.05
0.58
4.00
0.11
0.02
0.28
0.07
0.04
3.80
99.12
666
134
140
98
13
5.00
226.00
24.10
35.00
5.00
46
1
19
21
21
29
1448
46
98
41
MIN-GFA0009
74.70
0.40
12.50
2
0.02
0.6
0.06
0.57
4.03
0.13
0.03
0.23
0.13
0.03
3.42
99.30
591
137
145
47
11
5.00
213.00
24.00
33.00
5.00
44
1
26
23
19
30
1737
46
91
37
Table 3.6: Mineral composition of samples collected from debris flow profile, in weight
percent (as determined by quantitative mineralogy method from the modified ModAn
method, McLemore et al., 2009). QSP=quartz, pyrite, sericite alteration and QMWI=
Questa mineral weathering index (McLemore et al 2008a)
Sample
SWI
illite
chlorite
smectite
kaolinite
Pyrite
Gypsum
Jarosite
Othoclase
Quartz
QSP
Argilic
Intrusive
Amalia
Andesite
Proplytic
QMWI
3.7
MIN-GFA0001
3
28
2
1
2
0.1
0.01
1
18
45
65
5
99
1
7
MIN-GFA0003
MIN-GFA0005
25
3
1
2
0.2
0.3
0.01
16
43
85
28
1
2
0.1
0.04
100
2
2
MIN-GFA0006
3
21
3
1
3
0.1
0.8
20
46
70
10
17
40
55
99
2
10
90
7
7
7
MIN-GFA0007
3
29
2
1
2
0.1
1
14
48
70
MIN-GFA0009
3
27
1
1
2
0.1
0.1
1
16
48
70
10
90
100
7
7
Discussion
The geotechnical parameters do not show a clear trend with depth (Figs. 3.2 and
3.3). The point load and slake durability values for the debris flow profile are within the
ranges found in the Questa rock piles (Table 3.1). There is no observed clear trend of
slake durability index and point load strength index with depth, which might be due to the
deposition of different material layers during the formation of the debris flow which was
observed during sampling (Fig. 3.2). The paste pH, paste conductivity, moisture content
and dry density do not appear to correlate with depth (Fig. 3.3). Note the dry density of
samples located in the deeper layers is higher.
70
Figure 3.2: Variations of slake index, friction angle, and point load index and percent
gravel with depth from the base of the debris flow profile. No observed trend of
parameters with depth.
The water content of the samples from within the profile range between 1.1 and
13.2% and are slightly lower than the moisture contents of the Questa rock piles. The
gradation curves for the samples are shown in Fig. 3.4. The low percentage of fines in the
samples may be the result of clay-size particles remaining as larger silt- to sand-sized
aggregates during the dry sieving process. The sample with the highest peak friction
angle (MIN-GFA-0001) also has the highest percentage of gravel, contained angular rock
71
fragments, and has the highest dry density (Table 3.4). The high friction angle of this
sample is likely the result of these combined factors.
Figure 3.3: Variations of paste pH, paste conductivity, water content and dry density
with depth from the base of the debris flow profile. No clear trend was observed between
the parameters and depth.
72
Particle Size Distribution
U.S. Standard Sieve Size
3 2 1.5 1 3/4
Percent Passing by Weight
100
4
3/8
6
10
16
Hydrometer
30 40 50 60 100 200
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
Grain Size, mm
BOULDER
COBBLE
SAND
GRAVEL
SILT
Coarse
MIN-GFA-0001
MIN-GFA-0003
Fine
Coarse
Medium
MIN-GFA-0005
CLAY
Fine
MIN-GFA-0006
MIN-GFA-0007
MIN-GFA-0009
Figure 3.4: Gradation curves for the sieve analysis on the individual samples from the
debris flow profile.
There are no clear trends within the debris flow profile to indicate an increase in
weathering with depth in the profile. The results of the geochemical characterization
indicate that, samples collected from the debris flow are similar to each other and do not
indicate decrease in weathering from the top of the profile to the bottom. The paste pH
values for all of the samples range from 3.2 to 3.9, but there is no clear trend with depth
(Table 3.4 and Fig. 3.3). There is no clear trend of total Fe-oxide, Fe-oxide minerals, Kfeldspar, plagioclase or other minerals with depth (Figs. 3.5 and 3.6). There is no clear
trend of some selected trace elements such as fluorine, lead, copper and zinc with depth
(Fig. 3.7). The sulfide to sulfate ratio does not indicate an increase in sulfate minerals
with increasing depth; with the exception of the sample towards the middle of the profile
showing a relative decrease in the abundance of sulfate minerals towards the middle of
73
the debris flow (Figs. 3.8 and 3.9). This could indicate rapid deposition of the material to
prevent the oxidation of sulfide minerals. This could also be an indication of increase
sulfate mineralogy in the material before weathering. However, the total S amount for
this sample is slightly lower than the other samples from the debris flow. There is no
clear trend of mineralogy and pyrite with depth (Fig. 3.10). The mineralogy and
chemistry are similar to the samples at the in-situ test sites at the top of the debris flow
(McLemore et al., 2008).
Figure 3.5: Variations of FeO and Fe oxide minerals with depth from the base of the
debris flow profile. No clear trend of parameters with profile.
Figure 3.6: Variations of total feldspar (K-feldspar+plagioclase) with depth from the
base of the debris flow profile. No clear trend of parameters with profile.
74
Figure 3.7: Variations of selected trace elements with depth from the base of the debris
flow profile. No clear trend of trace elements with profile.
Figure 3.8: Variations of sulphur and SO4 with depth from the base of the debris flow
profile. No clear trend of parameters with profile.
30
25
Depth (ft)
20
15
10
5
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Figure 3.9: Variations of sulphur/sulphate ratio with depth from the base of the debris
flow profile. No clear trend of sulphur/sulphate with profile.
S/SO4
75
30
25
25
20
20
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
30
15
10
15
10
5
5
0
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
0
30
39
40
41
42
43
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
45
46
47
48
49
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
0
1
2
3
4
0
0.05
0.1
Chlorite (%)
0.15
0.2
0.25
Pyrite (%)
30
30
25
25
20
20
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
44
Quartz (%)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Illite (%)
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Gypsum (%)
10
12
14
16
18
Orthoclase (%)
Figure 3.10: Variations of geochemical and mineralogical parameters on the X-axis and
sample location along the profile from base to top on the y-axis. No clear trend of
parameters with profile.
76
20
22
The clay mineralogy from X-ray diffraction (XRD) analyses indicates that the
samples from the debris flow profile contain the same clay mineral groups as the Questa
rock piles and the alteration scar samples. The samples from the debris flow contain illite,
kaolinite, smectite, and minor chlorite (Fig. 3.11). The clay mineral relative abundances
do not vary significantly along the profile. The XRD peak position of the smectite clay
minerals indicate that the smectites contain only one structural water interlayer similar to
the smectites found in the Goathill north rock pile (Donahue et al., 2008). Jarosite is
present in all of the clay samples.
Figure 3.11: Clay mineralogy XRD scans for the debris flow weathering profile. I =
illite, C = Chlorite, S = smectite, K = kaolinite, J = Jarosite.
Weathering and diagenic processes (especially cementation) have occurred in the
debris flow, which is similar to that found in the rock piles (Figs. 3.12, 3.13, 3.15 and
77
3.16). Figures 3.13 and 3.14 shows the similarity in texture and mineralogy of the
cementation found in the debris flow and with the GHN rock pile and is formed by
oxidation of sulfide minerals producing sulfates and iron oxides. The debris flows are
well cemented, even below the surface. Portions of the Questa rock piles are poorly
cemented or have no cementation, but other portions, especially the outer layers are
moderate to well cemented (Table 3.1). This cementation is formed through the presence
of clay minerals, which are acting as cementing agents in the debris flow. Also break
down of pyrite produces sulfur which binds with iron and potassium to form jarosite,
gypsum, iron oxides and clay minerals. Cementation is variable in the profile and is
attributed to the precipitation of gypsum, jarosite, and Fe-oxide minerals (Fig. 3.17).
78
Figure 3.12: Backscattered electron microprobe image showing a cemented grain
consisting of small hydrothermally-altered phenocrysts within MIN-GFA-0001 sample.
The cement consists of clay minerals (illite), jarosite, and Fe oxides. The numbered
points represent points for mineral chemistry.
Figure 3.13: Backscattered electron microprobe image showing well cemented grains of
hydrothermally-altered phenocrysts within MIN-GFA-0001 sample. Illite, jarosite and Fe
oxide crystals are cementing the rock fragments. The cementation is similar in chemistry
and texture as that found in the GHN rock pile. The numbered points represent points for
mineral chemistry.
79
GHN-KMD-0065-30-01
Figure 3.14: Backscattered electron image (BSE) of a soil sample from GHN rock pile
showing rock fragment and associated fine-grained matrix material. Note the similarity in
texture of the cementation of rock fragments in this image compared to the image in
Figure 3.13. The fine-grained matrix consists of clay minerals and gypsum.
.
80
Figure 3.15: Backscattered electron microprobe image showing well-cemented
hydrothermally-altered phenocrysts within MIN-GFA-0006 sample. Illite, jarosite, Fe
oxide and feldspar crystals are cementing the rock fragments. The numbered points
represent points for mineral chemistry.
Figure 3.16: Backscattered electron microprobe image showing hydrothermally-altered
phenocrysts within MIN-GFA-0006 sample. Illite, jarosite, Fe oxide and kaolinite
crystals cementing the rock fragments. The numbered points represent points for mineral
chemistry.
81
Figure 3.17: Sample location along the profile, sample photos and microprobe images
along with sample type and strength of cementing agents.
82
3.8
CONCLUSIONS
•
The debris flows are similar to the Questa rock piles in terms of lithology, slake
and point load indices, friction angle, particle size distribution. However, the
cohesion intercept values of the of the debris flow are higher than those of the
rock piles (Boakye, 2008). The profile studied is not a weathered profile. There
are no systematic variations in the composition of the samples collected from the
profile, indicating that the debris flow was formed by several different flood
events with slightly different sources.
•
There are no clear trends within the debris flow profile to indicate an increase in
weathering with depth in the profile. The results of the geochemical
characterization indicate that the samples collected from the debris flow are
similar to each other and do not show signs of decreasing weathering from the top
of the profile to the bottom.
•
The paste pH values for all of the samples range from 3.2 to 3.9, however there is
no clear trend with depth (Table 3.4).
•
The clay mineralogy from X-ray diffraction (XRD) analyses indicates that the
samples from the profile contain the same clay mineral groups as the Questa rock
piles and the alteration scar samples. The samples from the debris flow contain
illite, kaolinite, smectite, and minor chlorite (Fig. 3.11).
•
The results of the geotechnical testing indicate that, there is no clear trend of
decreasing strength with increasing depth for the samples from the debris flow
profile. The point load and slake durability values for the debris flow profile are
within the ranges found in the Questa rock piles (Table 3.1). The water contents
83
of the samples from within the profile range between 1.1 and 13.2 % and are
slightly lower than the moisture contents of the Questa rock piles (Tables 3.1 and
3.4).
•
The sample with the highest peak friction angle (MIN-GFA-0001) also has the
highest percentage of gravel, contained sub-angular rock fragments, and highest
dry density (Table 3.4). The high friction angle of these samples is likely a result
of these combined factors.
•
The cementation agents are similar to those found in the rock piles are formed by
oxidation of sulfide minerals producing sulfates and iron oxides. The debris flows
are well cemented, even below the surface. Distribution of sulfide and sulfate
minerals suggests an open-system behavior (i.e. movement of sulfur within the
debris flow). No trends in silicate minerals (including clays) suggest that, no new
silicate minerals are forming during weathering, similar to observations in the
rock piles.
84
4.0
4.1
HOT ZONE STRENGTH STUDY.
Introduction
Venting gases or water vapor have been observed from several sites at the Questa
mine, mostly from drill holes in the front rock piles (Fig. 4.1), a vent area on Sulfur
Gulch South rock pile, and from cracks at the surface of Goathill North rock pile (GHN)
prior to regarding. Air flow was observed from coarse layers in GHN during examination
of the trenches (McLemore et al., 2008a). Elevated temperatures and relative humidity
explain these venting gases, often called fumaroles, which are common at other mine
sites (Ritchie, 2003; Wels et. al., 2003). Oxidation of pyrite is likely producing these hot
zones. Recent experimental studies by (Jerz 2002; Jerz and Rimstadt, 2004) have
confirmed earlier work by Morth and Smith (1966) that shows that, pyrite oxidizes faster
in moist air than under saturated conditions, thereby accelerating the weathering of the
rock piles, at least locally and producing hot spots. Shaw et al. (2003) described the
results of one years’ monitoring of temperature, CO2, and O2 from instrumented drill
holes in the rock piles at the Questa mine (Robertson GeoConsultants, Inc., 2000).
The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the strength of samples from the Sugar
Shack South hot zones using slake durability tests and determine whether weathering in
the hot zones will affect slope stability.
85
Figure 4.1: Location of venting drill holes and surface vent area. Blue indicates drill
holes drilled in 1999 that contain monitoring instruments for temperature, O2 and CO2.
Red indicates drill holes and surface vent area that do not contain temperature and gas
instrumentation and are sites monitored by the New Mexico Tech team.
4.2
Background
Rock piles from porphyry copper and molybdenum mines are large accumulations
of generally coarse-grained material containing sulfides (mostly pyrite) that are usually
unsaturated (i.e. gaseous and liquid phases are simultaneously present in the pore space
between the solid grains). Initially, following the oxidation of the sulfides, a partial
depletion of the oxygen present in rock piles occurs, unless oxygen is being replenished
by air flow from outside the rock pile. Oxygen concentration gradients are thus created
between the gas phase within the pile and the atmospheric air surrounding the pile. This
oxygen concentration gradient drives gaseous oxygen diffusion from the surface to the
86
interior of the rock pile. Gaseous diffusion is a major process providing oxygen within
rock accumulations after their initial placement and convection and diffusion remains
active thereafter as long as the oxidation process contributes to the depletion of oxygen
concentration in the gas phase within the rock pile (Morin et al., 1991).
The release of heat from pyrite oxidation drives temperature up locally within
rock piles. This increase in temperature can completely modify the mechanism
responsible for oxygen transfer in the piles. Following an initial increase in temperature
in rock piles of sufficiently high air-permeability, temperature and density-driven gas
convection currents are initiated in the rock piles. The resulting advective transport
‘draws’ atmospheric air into the rock piles. Convection is a much more efficient oxygen
transfer process than diffusion. Barometric pumping is another mode of air transport in
rock piles (Wels et al., 2007). Wels et al. (2003) mentions that changes in barometric
pressure are known to affect air flow into rock piles. However, this mechanism has not
been fully investigated.
Viterbo (2007) and Viterbo et al. (2007) studied the Goathill North (GHN) rock
pile and stated that the slake durability and point load test values show that the rock
fragments from the GHN rock pile are still quite strong even after being highly fractured
and altered before being blasted, then emplaced in the pile and subsequently weathered.
Ayakwah et.al. (2009) also studied the durability of rock fragments from the Questa Mine
and stated that the rock fragments are still durable after they have been expose to
weathering.
87
4.3
Methods
The test methods used for this work are slake durability and point load. These
tests provide durability and strength of the rock fragments from the hot zone of Sugar
Shack South rock pile. Test methods procedure is in chapter 2 section 2.3.2.
4.4
Results
The individual slake durability and the point load strength indices are shown in
Table 4.1 and 4.2 respectively. There are only 2 point load results and this is because the
samples were collected from drill cutting and most of the samples did not have enough
large rock fragments to perform the test on. Other results used were tests performed by
other members of the team (McLemore et al., 2008).
Hot zones were found in the Questa rock piles with temperatures ranging between
0° and 75°C. Cross sections were compiled through the Questa rock piles using available
data (Fig. 4.2).
Atterberg Limit values are in Table 4.3. There are no significant differences in
Atterberg Limits in the hot zone in drill hole SI-50. The slake durability indices remained
quite high except one result with an index of 39.7 % which is considered an outlier.
However LL, PL, and PI decrease below the hot zone.
88
SI-50
Temperature versus Depth
Maximum Operating
o
Temperature 50 C
0
Depth From Top of Casing (ft)
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
-350
-400
-450
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Temperature (Celcius)
Figure 4.2: Temperature log of drill hole SI-50 from Sugar Shack South rock pile.
Table 4.1: Slake durability indices for samples in drill hole SI-50 from Sugar Shack
South and their individual classification (Franklin and Chandra, 1972).
Sample ID
Slake index (%)
Durability Classification
SSS-EHP-0001
98.34
Extremely high
SSS-EHP-0002
98.45
Extremely high
SSS-EHP-0003
98.87
Extremely high
SSS-EHP-0006
98.38
Extremely high
SSS-EHP-0011
98.66
Extremely high
SSS-EHP-0012
98.27
Extremely high
SSS-EHP-0014
99.13
Extremely high
SSS-EHP-0015
99.28
Extremely high
SSS-EHP-0017
99.16
Extremely high
SSS-EHP-0019
99.18
Extremely high
SSS-EHP-0020
97.28
Extremely high
SSS-EHP-0021
96.16
Extremely high
SSS-EHP-0025
98.95
Extremely high
SSS-EHP-0025
39,7
SSS-EHP-0029
99.32
Extremely high
SSS-EHP-0030
99.54
Extremely high
SSS-EHP-0031
99.28
Extremely high
SSS-EHP-0032
99.52
Extremely high
SSS-EHP-0033
99.35
Extremely high
SSS-EHP-0034
99.50
Extremely high
SSS-EHP-0036
99.13
Extremely high
89
Low
Table 4.2: Point load strength indices for samples in drill hole SI-50 from Sugar Shack
South and their strength classification. (Broch and Franklin, 1972). Most of the samples
did not have big rock fragments for the point load test since the samples were collected
from drill cutting.
Sample ID
Point load Index (MPa)
Strength Classification
SSS-EHP-0014
2.45
High
SSS-EHP-0016
3.79
Very high
Table 4.3: Atterberg Limits through drill hole SI-50 from Sugar Shack South (URS,
2003).
Sample ID
LL
PL
PI
SSS-EHP-0003
20
17
3
SSS-EHP-0005
28
17
11
SSS-EHP-0007
24
17
7
SSS-EHP-0009
32
16
16
SSS-EHP-0011
26
15
11
SSS-EHP-0012
27
14
13
SSS-EHP-0013
30
14
16
SSS-EHP-0014
27
19
8
SSS-EHP-0016
28
17
11
SSS-EHP-0017
33
19
14
SSS-EHP-0018
31
18
13
SSS-EHP-0019
36
20
16
SSS-EHP-0020
32
17
15
SSS-EHP-0032
26
15
11
SSS-EHP-0036
21
16
5
SSS-EHP-0040
23
18
5
SSS-EHP-0042
29
21
8
90
4.5
Discussion
There is no significant differences in slake durability, Atterberg limits and the
mineralogy values from the test results (Figs. 4.3, 4.4, 4.5). There is no significant change
in paste pH within the hot zones (Fig. 4.3).
Variations in clay mineralogy with depth in SI-50 are shown in Figure 4.5. The
feldspar and clay mineral abundances do not change significantly in the hot zones. In
particular, kaolinite does not increase in relative abundance in the hot zones of the drill
holes. The concentration of gypsum + jarosite increases (Fig. 4.5). Plot of variations of
K-feldspar, gypsum+jarosite, total clay minerals with slake indices are shown in Figure
4.6.
91
Figure 4.3: Variations in slake durability index and paste pH with depth in drill hole SI50. Temperature log is in Figure 4.2. Red lines indicate approximate boundaries of the
hot zone (i.e. where temperatures exceed 50ºC).
Figure 4.4: Variations in LL (liquid limit) and PI (plasticity index) with depth in drill
hole SI-50. Temperature log is in Figure 4.2. Red lines indicate approximate boundaries
of the hot zone (i.e. where temperatures exceed 50ºC).
92
Figure 4.5: Variations in Gypsum + jarosite, K-feldspar + plagioclase and total clay with
depth in drill hole SI-50. Temperature log is in Figure 4.2. Red lines indicate approximate
boundaries of the hot zone (i.e. where temperatures exceed 50ºC).
93
Figure 4.6: Variation in K-feldspar + plagioclase, gypsum + jarosite, total clay and slake
index of the hot zone rock materials from Sugar Shack South rock pile.
4.6
Conclusion
The slake durability measurements of rock pile material collected from the hot
zones are similar to the measurements obtained for other materials in the Questa area
(Ayakwah et al., 2009) and indicate high strength. These measurements along with the
94
similarity in mineralogy and chemistry, especially considering that no new clays are
being formed by weathering of the material in the hot zones, suggests that the hot zones
have not noticeably changed in strength and durability as a result of being exposed to
weathering in the past 25-40 years.
95
5.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
•
The point load indices are medium to very high according to the point load
strength index classification (Fig. 2.9). The slake durability indices from the
Questa rock piles are high to extremely high according to the slake durability
index classification (Fig. 2.10)
•
The slake durability indices from the various rock piles range from 80.9 to 99.5 %
and the point load strength indices range from 0.6 to 8.2 MPa. Samples from
Sugar Shack South are slightly lower in point load indices than the other rock
piles, (Tables 2.5, 2.6, Fig. 2.9 and appendix C).
•
The point load values for rock fragments with different lithology range from 1.3
to 6.9 MPa, with all samples classified as high to very high strength. The slake
durability values for samples of andesite and rhyolite (Amalia Tuff) range from
83.7 to 99.6% with all samples classified as having high to extremely high
durability (Tables 2.5 and 2.6).
There is no significant difference in slake
durability between different lithologies, (Figs. 2.12 and 2.13).
•
The slake durability and point load test results indicate that, the samples from the
debris flows are slightly stronger (average slake durability index of 98.4% and
point load index of 4.0 MPa) than the rock pile samples and that the alteration
scar samples are slightly weaker (average slake durability index of 89.2% and
point load index of 2.8 MPa) than the rock pile samples, but still most of these
rocks are strong in terms of their slake durability and point load indices. The
alteration scar samples represent the more weathered material that has occurred
over thousands to millions of years (Tables 2.5 and 2.6; section 2.4).
96
•
There are no strong correlations between point load and slake durability with
mineralogy or chemistry (Fig. 2.14).
•
There are no strong correlations between friction angle and point load indices
with the Questa materials (Fig. 2.16).
•
The debris flows are similar to the Questa rock piles in terms of lithology, slake
and point load indices, friction angle, particle size distribution but an exception is
the cohesion intercept values of the debris flow which are higher than those of the
rock piles. There are no systematic variations in the composition of the samples
collected from the profile, indicating that the debris flow was formed by several
different flood events with slightly different sources (Table 3.1).
•
There are no clear trends within the debris flow profile to indicate an increase in
weathering with depth in the profile. The results of the geochemical
characterization indicate that, the samples collected from the debris flow are
similar to each other and do not show signs of decreasing weathering from the top
of the profile to the bottom (Table 3.4, Figs. 3.2 and 3.3).
•
The clay mineralogy from X-ray diffraction (XRD) analyses indicates that the
samples from the profile contain the same clay mineral groups as the Questa rock
piles and the alteration scar samples (Fig. 3.11).
•
The results of the geotechnical testing indicate there is no clear trend of
decreasing strength with increasing depth for the samples from the debris flow
profile.
97
•
The cementation agents are similar to those found in the rock piles and are formed
by oxidation of sulfide minerals producing sulfates and iron oxides. The debris
flows are well cemented, even below the surface.
•
Distribution of sulfide and sulfate minerals suggests an open-system behavior (i.e.
movement of sulfur within the debris flow).
•
The slake durability measurements of rock pile material collected from the hot
zones are similar to the measurements obtained for other materials in the Questa
area and indicate high strength (Table 3.1 and 4.1).
5.2
References Cited
ASTM, 2001, American Society for Testing Materials. Procedures for testing soils, 1964.
Standard Test Method for Slake Durability of Shales and Similar Weak Rocks:
D464487 (Reapproved 1992): Annual Book of ASTM Standards, West
Conshohocken, PA.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1975, Point load test in geotechnical practice, Engineering Geology,
9(1), 1- 11.
Blowes, D. W., and Jambor, J.L., 1990, The pore-water geochemistry and mineralogy of
the vadose zone of sulfide tailings, Waite Amulet, Quebec, Canasa: Applied
Geochemistry. v. 5, pp. 327-346.
Boakye, K., 2008, “Large in situ direct shear tests on rock piles at the Questa Mine,
Taos County, New Mexico”: M.S. thesis, New Mexico Institute of Mining and
Technology, Socorro, 156 p.
Broch, E. and Franklin, J. A., 1972, The Point Load Strength Test: International Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Mineral Sciences, v. 9, p. 669-697.
Caine, J. S., 2003, Questa baseline and pre-mining ground-water quality investigation 6:
Preliminary brittle structural geologic data, Questa mining district, southern
Sangre de Cristo Mountains, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-file
Report 02-0280.
Carpenter, R. H., 1968, Geology and Ore Deposits of the Questa Molybdenum Mine
Area, Taos County, New Mexico., Ore Deposits of the United States, 1933-1967,
AIME Graton-Sales, American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum
Engineers, p. 1328-1350.
Cetin, H., Laman, M. and Ertunc, 2000, Settlement and slaking problems in the world’s
fourth largest rock-fill dam, the Ataturk Dam in Turkey, Engineering Geology
56(3-4), 225-242.
98
D’Andrea, D.V., Fisher, R.L. and Fogelson, D.E., 1964, Prediction of compression
strength from other rock properties, Colorado School of Mines Quarterly, 59(4B),
623-640.
Dhakal, G., Yoneda, T., Kato, M., and Kaneko, K., 2002, Slake Durability and
Mineralogical Properties of some Pyroclastic and Sedimentary Rocks:
Engineering Geology, v. 65, p. 31-45.
Dhakal, G. P, Kodama, J., Kato, M., Yoneda, T., Neaupane, K.M., and Goto, T., 2004,
Durability characteristics of some assorted rocks: Engineering Geology, v. 65, p.
31-45.
Dick, J.C. and Shakoor, A. 1995, Characterizing durability of mud rocks for slope
stability purposes: Geological Society America, Reviews in Engineering Geology,
v. X, p. 121-130.
Donahue K. M. , Dubar, N. W. , Heizler, L. L., and McLemore, V. T. 2008, Origins of
clay minerals in the Goathill North Rock Pile, Questa Mine, Taos County, New
Mexico, unpublished report to Chevron Mining Inc.
Duzgoren-Aydin, N.S., Aydin, A., and Malpas, A.J., 2002, Re-assessment of chemical
weathering indices: case study on pyroclastic rocks of Hong Kong: Engineering
Geology, v. 63, p. 99-119.
Fookes, P. G., Dearman, W. R., and Franklin, J. A., 1971, Some engineering aspects of
rock weathering with field examples from Dartmoor and elsewhere: Quarterly
Journal of Engineering Geology, v. 4, p. 139-185.
Fookes, P.G., Gourley, C.S., and Ohikere, C., 1988, Rock weathering in engineering
time: Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, v. 21, p. 33-57.
Franklin, J.A., and Chandra, A., 1972, The slake durability test: International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mineral Sciences: v. 9, p. 325–341.
Geological Society Engineering Working Party Report, 1995, The description and
classification of weathered rocks for engineering: Quarterly Journal of
Engineering Geology, v. 28, p. 207-242.
Gupta, A.S. and Rao, K. S., 2001, Weathering indices and their applicability for
crystalline rocks: Bull. Eng. Geol. Env., v. 60, p. 201-221.
Gupta, V. and Ahmed I., 2007, The effect of pH of water and mineralogical properties on
the slake durability (degradability) of different rocks from the Lesser Himalaya,
India: Engineering Geology 95, 79-87.
Gunsallus, K.L. and Kulhawy, F.H., 1984, Comparative evaluation of rock strength
measures, International Journal Rock Mechanic Mining Science Geomechanic
Abstract, 2(5), 233-248.
Gutierrez, L. A. F., 2006. The Influence of Mineralogy, Chemistry and Physical
Engineering properties on Shear Strength Parameters of the Goathill North Rock
Pile Material, Questa Molybdenum Mine, New Mexico: M. S. thesis, New
Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, 201.
pp.,http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/staff/mclemore/Molycorppapers.htm,. Accessed
October 10 2008.
Gutierrez, L.A.F., Viterbo, V.C., McLemore, V.T., and Aimone-Martin, C.T., 2008,
Geotechnical and Geomechanical Characterisation of the Goathill North Rock
Pile at the Questa Molybdenum Mine, New Mexico, USA; in Fourie, A., ed., First
99
International Seminar on the Management of Rock Dumps, Stockpiles and Heap
Leach Pads: The Australian Centre for Geomechanics, University of Western
Australia, p. 19-32.
Gökçeo─člu, C., Ulusay, R. and Sönmez, H., 2000, Factors affecting the durability of
selected weak and claybearing rocks from Turkey, with particular emphasis in the
influence of the number of drying and wetting cycles: Engineering Geology, v.
57, p. 215-237.
Graf, G., 2008, Mineralogical and geochemical changes associated with sulfide and
silicate weathering in natural alteration scars, Taos County, New Mexico: M.S.
thesis, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, 193 p.,
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/staff/mclemore/Molycorppapers.htm, accessed April 28,
2008.
Hall, J.S., 2004, New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resource’s Clay Laboratory
Manual: Unpublished New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources
report.
Hassani, F.P., Scoble, M.J and Whittaker, B.N., 1980, Application of point load index
test to strength determination of rock and proposals for new size correction chart,
Proc. 21st Symposium Rock Mechanics Rolla, pp. 543-564.
International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM), 1979, Suggested Methods for
determination of the slake durability index: International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mineral Sciences Geomech., v. 16, 154-156.
International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM), 1985, Suggested Methods for
determining point load strength: International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mineral Sciences Geomech., p. 53-60.
Jerz, J.K., 2002, Geochemical Reactions in Unsaturated Mine Wastes: PhD dissertation,
University of Virginia, Blacksburg, 115 p.
Jerz, J.K. and Rimstidt, J.D., 2004, Pyrite oxidation in humid air: Geochimica
Cosmochimica Acta, vol. 68, p. 701-714.
Johnson, R.B., DeGraff, J.V., 1988, Principles of Engineering Geology, Wiley, New
York, pp 497.
Kolay, E. and Kayabali, K., 2006, Investigating of the effect of aggregate shape and
surface roughness on the slake durability index using the fractal dimension
approach: Engineering Geology 86, 271-284.
Lefebvre, R., Lamontagne, A., Wels, C., and Robertson, A., 2002, ARD Production and
Water Vapor Transport at the Questa Mine, Tailings and Mine Waste '02:
Proceedings
of the Tailings & Mine Waste '02 Conference, January 27-30: Fort Collins,
A.A.Balkema, p. 479-488.
Lipman, P. W., 1981, Volcano-tectonic setting of tertiary ore deposits, southern Rocky
Mountains: Arizona Geological Society Digest, v. 14, p. 199-213.
Little, A.L., 1969, The engineering weathering classification of residual tropical soils; in
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Special Session on the Engineering Properties of
Lateritic Soils: Mexico City, p. 1-10.
100
Ludington, S., Plumlee, G. S., Jonathan, C., Bove, D., Holloway, J., and Livo, E., 2004,
Questa baseline and pre-mining ground-water quality investigation. 10. Geologic
influences on ground and surface waters in the lower Red River watershed, New
Mexico: United States Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 20045245.
Lueth, V. W., Samuels, K. E., and Campbell, A. R. (2008) Final report on the
geochronology (40Ar/39Ar) dating of Red River Alteration scars and debris
flows, unpublished report to Chevron Mining Inc.
Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, 2005, Designing of waste
dumps vis a vis land use planning for marble quarries in southern Rajasthan,
India: 20th World Mining Congress.
Meyer, J. and Leonardson, R., 1990, Tectonic, hydrothermal, and geomorphic controls on
alteration scar formation near Questa, New Mexico: New Mexico Geological
Society, Guidebook 41, p. 417-422.
Meyer, J. W., and Leonardson, R. W., 1997, Geology of the Questa mining district:
Volcanic, plutonic, tectonic and hydrothermal history, New Mexico Bureau of
Mines and Mineral Resources Bulletin, Open File Report 431: Socorro, 187 p.
McLemore, V. T., Lueth, V. W., and Walker, B. M., 2004d, Alteration scars in the Red
River valley, Taos County, New Mexico: New Mexico Geological Society
Guidebook, v. 55, p. 19.
McLemore, V. T., Walsh, P., Donahue, K., Gutierrez, L., Tachie-Menson, S.,Shannon, H.
R., and Wilson, G. W., 2005, Preliminary Status Report on Molycorp Goathill
North Trenches, Questa, New Mexico In: 2005 National Meeting of the American
Society of Mining and Reclamation. American Society of Mining and
Reclamation,
Breckenridge,
Colorado,
26
pp.,
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/staff/mclemore/Molycorppapers.htm, accessed June 19,
2008.
McLemore, V.T., Donahue, K.M., Phillips, E., Dunbar, N., Walsh, P., Gutierrez, L.A.F.,
Tachie-Menson, S., Shannon, H.R., Wilson, G.W., and Walker, B.M., 2006a,
Characterization of Goathill North Mine Rock Pile, Questa Molybdenum Mine,
Questa, New Mexico: National Meeting of the 7th ICARD, SME, and American
Society of Mining and Reclamation, St. Louis, Mo., March, CD-ROM,
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/staff/mclemore/Molycorppapers.htm
McLemore, V.T., Donahue, K., Phillips, E., Dunbar, N., Smith, M., Tachie-Menson, S.,
Viterbo, V., Lueth, V.W., Campbell, A.R. and Walker, B.M., 2006b,
Petrographic, mineralogical and chemical characterization of Goathill North Mine
Rock Pile, Questa Molybdenum Mine, Questa, New Mexico: 2006 Billings Land
Reclamation Symposium, June, 2006, Billings, Mt. Published by Published by
American Society of Mining and Reclamation, 3134 Montavesta Rd., Lexington,
KY CD-ROM, http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/staff/mclemore/Molycorppapers.htm
McLemore, V.T., Ayakwah, G., Boakye, K., Campbell, A., Donahue, K., Dunbar, N.,
Gutierrez, L. Heizler, L., Lynn, R., Lueth, V., Osantowski, E., Phillips, E.,
Shannon, H., Smith, M. Tachie-Menson, S., van Dam, R., Viterbo, V.C., Walsh,
P., and Wilson, G.W., 2008a, Characterization of Goathill North Rock Pile:
101
revised unpublished report to Molycorp, Tasks: 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.4.2, 1.4.3, 1.11.1.3,
1.11.1.4, 1.11.2.3, B1.1.1, B1.3.2.
McLemore, V.T., Donahue, K., and Sweeney, D., 2008b, Lithologic atlas for the Questa
mine, Taos County, New Mexico: revised unpublished report to Molycorp,
February 11, 2004, Revised August 27, 2008 (revised from appendix 2.3, May
2005 report).
McLemore, V.T., Sweeney, D., Dunbar, N., Heizler, L. and Phillips, E., 2009,
Determining bulk mineralogy using a combination of petrographic techniques,
whole rock chemistry, and MODAN: Society of Mining, Metallurgy and
Exploration Annual Convention, preprint Feb 2009.
Molycorp Inc., 2002, Request for Letters of Intent, : Questa, NM.
http://www.infomine.com/consultants/doc/mcrliaun.pdf. Accessed, April 20th,
2008
Molycorp Inc., 2007, History, Mineralogy and Mining - Questa, NM.
http://www.molycorp.com/operational_excellence/qhistory.asp. Accessed; May
2nd, 2008.
Molling, P. A., 1989, Applications of the reaction progress variable to hydrothermal
alteration associated with the deposition of the Questa molybdenite deposit: Ph.
D. dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 227 p.
Moore, O.M. and Reynolds, R.O., Jr., 1989, X-ray diffraction and the identification and
analyses of clay minerals: Oxford University Press, New York. 378 p.
Morin, K.A., Gerencher, E., Jones, C. E., and Konasewich, D. E., 1991, Critical literature
review of acid rock drainage from waste rock: MEND 1.11.1, 176 p.
Morth, A. H. and Smith, E. E., 1966, Kinetics of the sulfide-to-sulfate reaction: Am.
Chem. Soc. Div. Fuel Chem. Preprints 10, 83.
Neuendorf, K.K.E., Mehl, Jr., J.P., and Jackson, J.A., 2005, Glossary of geology, 5th ed.:
American Geological Institute, Alexandria, Virginia, 779 p.
Norwest Corporation, 2003. Goathill North Mine Rock Pile Evaluation and Conceptual
Mitigation Plan. Unpublished Report to Molycorp Inc.
Nunoo S., McLemore, V.T., Fakhimi, A., Ayakwah, G., 2009, The effect of weathering
on particle shape of Questa mine material: Society of Mining, Metallurgy and
Exploration Annual Convention, preprint Feb 2009.
Nunoo S., 2009, Geotechnical Evalution of Questa mine materials, Taos County, New
Mexico: M.S. thesis, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro.
Paktunc, A.D., 1998, MODAN: An interactive computer program for estimating mineral
quantities based on bulk composition: Computers and Geoscience, v. 24 (5), p.
425-431.
Paktunc, A.D., 2001, MODAN—A Computer program for estimating mineral quantities
based on bulk composition: Windows version. Computers and Geosciences, 27,
883-886.
Panek, L. A. and Fannon, T.A., 1992, Size and shape effects in point load tests of
irregular rock fragments, Rock Mechanics Rock Engineering, 25, 109-40.
Piché, M. and Jébrak, M., 2004, Normative minerals and alteration indices developed for
mineral exploration: Journal of Geochemical Exploration, v. 82, p. 59-77.
102
Plumlee, G.S., Ludington, S., Vincent, K.R., Verplanck, P.L., Caine, J.S., and Livo, K.E.,
2006, Questa Baseline and Pre-Mining Ground-Water Quality Investigation. 7. A
pictorial record of chemical weathering, erosional processes and potential debriflow hazards in scar areas developed on hydrothermally altered rocks. U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1205.
Quine, R. L., 1993, Stability and deformation of mine waste dumps in north central
Nevada: PhD. dissertation, University of Nevada, Reno, 402 p.
Rehrig, W. A., 1969, Fracturing and its effects on molybdenum
mineralization at Questa, New Mexico: Ph. D. dissertation, University Arizona,
Tucson, AZ, 175 p.
Ritchie, A.I.M., 2003, Oxidation and gas transport in piles of sulfidic waste; in
Environmental aspects of mine wastes: Mineralogical Association of Canada,
Short Course Series, v. 21, p. 73-94.
Robertson GeoConsultants, Inc., 2000, Progress Report: Questa Mine Rock Pile
Monitoring and Characterization Study, Open-file Report No. 052007/3 for
Molycorp Inc.
Rodrigues, J.G., 1991, Physical characterization and assessment of rock durability
through index properties. NATO ASI Ser. Ed. Applied Sciences 200, 7-34.
Schilling J.H., 1956, Geology of the Questa molybdenum (Moly) mine area, Taos
County, New Mexico, State Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, New
Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology, Campus Station, New Mexico, Bulletin
51:87.
Shannon, H., Sigda, J., van Dam, R., Hendrickx, J., and McLemore, V.T., 2005, Thermal
Camera Imaging of Rock Piles at the Questa Molybdenum Mine, Questa, New
Mexico: National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation,
Breckenridge, Colo, June, CD-ROM.
Shaw, S., Wels, C., Robertson, A., Fortin, S., and Walker, B., 2003, Background
characterization study of naturally occurring acid rock drainage in the Sangre de
Cristo Mountains, Taos County, New Mexico; in ICARD 2003—Proceedings
from the 5th international conference on acid rock drainage: The Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne, p. 605-616.
Shum, M. G. W., 1999, Characterization and dissolution of secondary weathering
products from the Gibraltar mine site: M. S. thesis, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, 310 p.
Smith, K.S., Briggs, P.H., Campbell, D.L., Castle, C.J., Desborough, G.A., Eppinger,
R.G., III, Fitterman, D.V., Hageman, P.L., Leinz, R.W., Meeker, G.P., Stanton,
M.R., Sutley, S.J., Swayze, G.A., and Yager, D.B., 2000a, Tools for the rapid
screening and characterization of historical metalmining waste dumps, in
Proceedings of the 2000 Billings Land Reclamation Symposium, Billings,
Montana, March 2024, 2000: Bozeman, Montana State University, Reclamation
Research
Unit
Publication
No.
0001
(CDROM),
p.
435442,
http://crustal.usgs.gov/minewaste/pdfs/ksmith_billings.pdf.
103
Smith, L. and Beckie, R., 2003, *Hydrologic and geochemical transport processes in
mine waste rock;** */in/ Environmental aspects of *mine** **wastes: *Short
Course Series, v. 31, p. 51-72.
Tachie-Menson, S., 2006, Characterization of the acid producing potential and
investigation of its effect on weathering of the Goathill North rock pile at the
Questa Molybedenum Mine, New Mexico: M.S. thesis, New Mexico Institute of
Mining
and
Technology,
Socorro,
NM,
209
pp.,
http://gepinfo.nmt.edu/staff/mclemore/Molycorppapers.htm. Accessed January
19, 2008.
Tamotsu, T. 2007, Debris flow mechanics, prediction and countermeasures: BalkemaProceedings-Engineering, p 6.
URS Corporation (2000), “Interim mine rock pile erosion and stability evaluations,
Questa
Mine”, unpublished report to Molycorp, Inc., 6800044388.00,
December 1, at http://www.molycorp.com/home_frameset.html, accessed May
15, 2008.
URS Corporation, 2003, Interim Mine Rock Pile Erosion and Stability Evaluations,
Questa Mine. Unpublished Report to Molycorp Inc.
Viterbo, V., 2007, Effect of premining hydrothermal alteration processes and postmining
weathering on rock engineering properties of Goathill north rock pile at the
Questa Mine, Toas , New Mexico: M. S. thesis, New Mexico Institute of Mining
and Technology, Socorro, NM, 209 p.,
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/staff/mclemore/Molycorppapers.htm, accessed March 10,
2008.
Viterbo, V., McLemore, V.T., Donahue, K., Aimone-Martin, C., Fakhimi, A., and
Sweeney, D. 2007, Effects of chemistry, mineralogy, petrography and alteration
on rock engineering properties of the Goathill North rock pile at the Molycorp
Questa Mine, New Mexico: SME Annual Meeting, Preprint 07-099, Denver,
Colorado.
Wels, C., Loudon, S., and Fortin, S., 2002, Factors Influencing Net Infiltration into
Mine Rock Piles at Questa Mine, New Mexico, Tailings and Mine Waste '02:
Proceedings of the Tailings & Mine Waste '02 Conference, January 27-30: Fort
Collins, CO., A. A. Balkema, p. 469-478.
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/molybdenum/ assessed July
30th, 2008
Wels, C., Lefebvre, R., and Robertson, A.M., 2003, An overview of prediction and
control of air flow in gas acid-generating waste rock dumps; in ICARD 2003—
Proceedings from the 5th international conference on acid rock drainage: The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne, p. 639-650.
Zhao, J., Broms, B.B., Zhou, Y. and Choa, V., 1994, A study of the weathering of the
Bukit Timah Granite, Part A: Review, Field Observations and Geophysical
Survey, Bulletin of the International Association of Engineering Geology, Paris
vol. 49 (1994).
104
APPENDIX A
TEST RESULTS
Appendix A1: Point Load Test Results
Table A1: Point Load Strength Summary Results excluding the work by Viterbo, (2007).
Point Load Strength Index
SAMPLE ID
MID-AAF-0001
MID-VTM-0002
MIN-AAF-0010
MIN-AAF-0012
MIN-AAF-0013
MIN-AAF-0015
MIN-GFA-0001
MIN-GFA-0003
MIN-GFA-0005
MIN-GFA-0009
MIN-SAN-0001
MIN-VTM-0002
MIN-VTM-0007
MIN-VTM-0009
QPS-AAF-0019
QPS-AAF-0020
QPS-AAF-0022
QPS-SAN-0001
QPS-VTM-0001
SPR-AAF-0001
SPR-AAF-0003
SPR-SAN-0001
SPR-VTM-0005
SPR-VTM-0008
SPR-VTM-0010
SPR-VTM-0021
SSS-AAF-0004
SSS-AAF-0005
SSS-AAF-0007
SSS-AAF-0012
SSS-EHP-0014
SSS-EHP-0016
SSS-VTM-0010
SSS-VTM-0012
SSW-AAF-0001
SSW-AAF-0005
SSW-AAF-0007
SSW-AAF-0009
SSW-SAN-0001
SSW-SAN-0007
Is(50)
(MPa)
4.36
4.53
3.52
3.50
4.01
3.25
2.75
5.95
2.61
3.80
5.04
4.64
4.45
4.86
3.77
2.57
2.52
3.50
1.71
3.92
4.80
2.08
2.81
3.39
1.34
2.60
1.62
1.03
2.19
2.08
2.45
3.79
2.30
2.19
4.37
1.68
5.30
4.01
2.51
2.03
Standard Deviation
(MPa)
0.48
0.27
0.63
0.61
1.22
0.28
0.72
1.08
0.28
1.19
1.45
0.20
0.81
0.45
0.80
0.65
0.50
0.72
0.46
0.43
0.38
0.72
0.47
0.50
0.37
0.30
0.18
0.27
0.53
0.18
0.05
0.27
0.46
0.17
0.82
0.13
2.94
0.72
1.05
0.44
105
Coefficient of Variation %
11
6
18
17
30
9
26
18
11
31
29
4
18
9
21
25
20
20
27
11
8
35
17
15
28
12
11
26
24
9
2
7
20
8
19
8
55
18
42
22
Strength Classification
Very High
Very High
Very High
Very High
Very High
Very High
High
Very High
High
Very High
Very High
Very High
Very High
Very High
Very High
High
High
Very High
High
Very High
Very High
High
High
Very High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Very High
High
High
Very High
High
Very High
Very High
High
High
SSW-VTM-0016
4.40
0.48
11
Very High
SSW-VTM-0019
SSW-VTM-0022
SSW-VTM-0023
SSW-VTM-0028
SSW-VTM-0030
5.02
4.57
5.20
6.06
4.19
0.12
1.06
0.53
0.55
0.35
2
23
10
9
8
Very High
Very High
Very High
Very High
Very High
(a)
(b)
Figure A1: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SSW-SAN-0001 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(b)
(a)
Figure A2: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample MIN-SAN-0001(a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
106
(a)
(b)
Figure A3: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SPR-SAN-0001(a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(a)
(b)
Figure A4: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SSW-SAN-0007 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(a)
(b)
Figure A5: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample MIN-GFA-0005(a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
107
(a)
(b)
Figure A6: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample MIN-GFA-0009(a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(a)
(b)
Figure A7: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample MIN-GFA-0003(a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(b)
(a)
Figure A8: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SSW-AAF-0005 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
108
(b)
(a)
Figure A9: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample MIN-AAF-0015 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(b)
(a)
Figure A10: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample MIN-GFA-0001(a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(a)
(b)
Figure A11: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample MIN-AAF-0013 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
109
(a)
(b)
Figure A12: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample QPS-SAN-0001 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(a)
(b)
Figure A13: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample MIN-AAF-0012 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(b)
(a)
Figure A14: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample MIN-AAF-0010 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
110
(b)
(a)
Figure A15: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SSW-AAF-0007 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(a)
(b)
Figure A16: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample QPS-AAF-0019 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(a)
(b)
Figure A17: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample QPS-AAF-0020 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
111
(a)
(b)
Figure A18: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample QPS-AAF-0022 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(b)
(a)
Figure A19: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample QPS-VTM-0001 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(a)
(b)
Figure A20: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SPR-AAF-0003 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
112
(a)
(b)
Figure A21: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SPR-AAF-0001 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(a)
(b)
Figure A22: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SSW-VTM-0023 (a) with the entire
data points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(b)
(a)
Figure A23: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SSW-VTM-0019 (a) with the entire
data points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
113
(b)
(a)
Figure A24: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SSW-AAF-0005 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(a)
(b)
Figure A25: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SPR-VTM-0021 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(a)
(b)
Figure A26: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample MIN-VTM-0002 (a) with the entire
data points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
114
(a)
(b)
Figure A27: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SSS-AAF-0012 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(a)
(b)
Figure A28: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SSW-AAF-0009 (a) with the entire
data points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(a)
(b)
Figure A29: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SSS-AAF-0004 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
115
(a)
(b)
Figure A30: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample MIN-VTM-0007 (a) with the entire
data points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(a)
(b)
Figure A31: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample MIN-VTM-0009 (a) with the entire
data points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(b)
(a)
Figure A32: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SSS-EHP-0014 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
116
(a)
(b)
Figure A33: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SSS-VTM-0012 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(a)
(b)
Figure A34: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SSS-EHP-0016 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(a)
(b)
Figure A35: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SSS-VTM-0010 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
117
(a)
(b)
Figure A36: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SSS-AAF-0005 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(a)
(b)
Figure A37: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SPR-VTM-0010 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(b)
(a)
Figure A38: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample MID-AAF-0001 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
118
(a)
(b)
Figure A39: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SSS-AAF-0007 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(a)
(b)
Figure A40: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SSW-AAF-0001(a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(a)
(b)
Figure A41: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SSW-VTM-0030 (a) with the entire
data points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
119
(a)
(b)
Figure A42: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SPR-VTM-0005 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(a)
(b)
Figure A43: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SPR-VTM-0008 (a) with the entire data
points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(a)
(b)
Figure A44: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SSW-VTM-0028 (a) with the entire
data points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
120
(a)
(b)
Figure A45: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample MID-VTM-0002 (a) with the entire
data points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(b)
(a)
Figure A46: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SSW-VTM-0022 (a) with the entire
data points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
(a)
(b)
Figure A47: Point Load Strength Plot of Sample SSW-VTM-0016 (a) with the entire
data points whereas (b) shows a plot with the removed deviated points.
121
Appendix A2: Slake Durability Test Results.
Table A2: Slake Durability Index Summary Results excluding the work by Viterbo,
(2007).
Sample ID
ID2 (%)
Durability
Classification
Water
Content (%)
HAN-GJG-0007
90.20
Very High
II
3.79
HAN-GJG-0009
94.01
Very High
II
1.94
HAN-GJG-0010
87.02
High
II
1.75
HAS-GJG-0004
70.84
Medium
III
8.47
HAS-GJG-0008
92.42
Very High
II
9.73
HAS-GJG-0014
81.24
High
II
2.83
MID-AAF-0001
95.61
Extremely High
II
0.79
MID-AAF-0002
97.34
Extremely High
II
0.86
MID-VTM-0002
97.64
Extremely High
II
1.80
MIN-AAF-0001
97.61
Extremely High
II
0.95
MIN-AAF-0004
96.12
Extremely High
II
1.03
MIN-AAF-0006
95.98
Extremely High
II
0.42
MIN-AAF-0010
97.32
Extremely High
I
1.61
MIN-AAF-0013
98.23
Extremely High
II
1.8
MIN-AAF-0015
99.09
Extremely High
II
1.66
MIN-GFA-0001
98.42
Extremely High
I
1.95
MIN-GFA-0003
99.46
Extremely High
I
2.32
MIN-GFA-0005
98.71
Extremely High
I
2.19
MIN-GFA-0009
98.57
Extremely High
I
2.25
MIN-SAN-0001
98.61
Extremely High
I
2.13
MIN-VTM-0002
98.65
Extremely High
II
0.57
MIN-VTM-0003
99.23
Extremely High
I
0.76
MIN-VTM-0004
98.88
Extremely High
II
0.85
MIN-VTM-0006
98.85
Extremely High
I
1.07
MIN-VTM-0007
98.87
Extremely High
I
0.90
MIN-VTM-0008
98.81
Extremely High
I
1.00
MIN-VTM-0009
98.58
Extremely High
I
2.13
QPS-AAF-0001
97.10
Extremely High
I
1.08
QPS-AAF-0003
90.08
Very High
II
2.95
QPS-AAF-0005
96.99
Extremely High
II
1.29
QPS-AAF-0009
94.94
Very High
II
1.91
QPS-AAF-0019
97.99
Extremely High
I
2.02
QPS-AAF-0020
94.69
Very High
II
3.32
122
Type
QPS-AAF-0022
94.41
Very High
II
3.20
QPS-SAN-0001
92.39
Very High
II
0.53
QPS-VTM-0001
95.23
Extremely High
II
3.60
SPR-AAF-0001
97.21
Extremely High
I
0.52
SPR-AAF-0003
97.84
Extremely High
II
0.99
SPR-SAN-0001
97.96
Extremely High
II
1.05
SPR-AAF-0003
83.51
High
II
1.80
SPR-VTM-0005
98.64
Extremely High
II
0.42
SPR-VTM-0008
98.49
Extremely High
II
0.81
SPR-VTM-0010
97.82
Extremely High
II
0.71
SPR-VTM-0012
96.89
Extremely High
II
0.45
SPR-VTM-0014
98.21
Extremely High
II
0.89
SPR-VTM-0017
67.67
Medium
III
1.25
SPR-VTM-0019
98.05
Extremely High
II
0.83
SPR-VTM-0021
96.84
Extremely High
II
1.04
SSS-AAF-0004
96.94
Extremely High
II
2.72
SSS-AAF-0005
96.49
Extremely High
II
2.91
SSS-AAF-0007
90.95
Very High
III
2.38
SSS-AAF-0009
94.79
Very High
II
3.12
SSS-AAF-0011
85.33
High
II
1.11
SSS-AAF-0012
97.21
Extremely High
II
0.86
SSS-EHP-0001
98.34
Extremely High
II
0.50
SSS-EHP-0002
98.45
Extremely High
I
1.20
SSS-EHP-0003
98.87
Extremely High
I
0.72
SSS-EHP-0006
98.38
Extremely High
I
1.07
SSS-EHP-0011
98.66
Extremely High
II
0.71
SSS-EHP-0012
98.27
Extremely High
I
0.90
SSS-EHP-0014
99.13
Extremely High
I
0.66
SSS-EHP-0015
99.28
Extremely High
I
0.72
SSS-EHP-0017
99.16
Extremely High
I
0.71
SSS-EHP-0019
99.18
Extremely High
I
0.35
SSS-EHP-0020
97.28
Extremely High
II
0.72
SSS-EHP-0021
96.16
Extremely High
I
0.77
SSS-EHP-0025
98.95
Extremely High
II
0.53
SSS-EHP-0029
99.32
Extremely High
I
0.57
SSS-EHP-0030
99.54
Extremely High
I
0.58
SSS-EHP-0031
99.28
Extremely High
II
0.98
SSS-EHP-0032
99.52
Extremely High
I
0.49
SSS-EHP-0033
99.35
Extremely High
I
0.86
123
SSS-EHP-0034
99.50
Extremely High
I
0.73
SSS-EHP-0036
99.13
Extremely High
II
0.84
SSS-VTM-0010
97.60
Extremely High
II
1.83
SSS-VTM-0012
96.80
Extremely High
II
3.93
SSS-VTM-0600
96.80
Extremely High
II
0.96
SSW-AAF-0001
97.49
Extremely High
II
2.47
SSW-AAF-0002
96.65
Extremely High
II
1.07
SSW-AAF-0005
82.30
High
II
1.09
SSW-AAF-0007
95.21
Extremely High
II
0.93
SSW-SAN-0001
96.07
Extremely High
I
1.09
SSW-SAN-0007
95.18
Extremely High
II
2.47
SSW-VM-0016
97.48
Extremely High
II
1.88
SSW-VTM-0001
98.61
Extremely High
II
0.86
SSW-VTM-0004
81.43
High
II
0.29
SSW-VTM-0012
93.60
Very High
II
0.58
SSW-VTM-0016
97.53
Extremely High
II
1.86
SSW-VTM-0022
98.61
Extremely High
II
1.36
SSW-VTM-0023
98.44
Extremely High
II
1.51
SSW-VTM-0026
97.86
Extremely High
II
1.75
SSW-VTM-0028
97.15
Extremely High
II
0.63
SSW-VTM-0030
96.63
Extremely High
II
0.59
SWH-GJG-0008
76.12
High
III
7.10
SWH-GJG-0009
64.52
Medium
III
5.45
SWH-GJG-0012
92.36
Very High
II
5.15
SWH-GJG-0015
96.16
Extremely High
II
1.80
124
APPENIDX B. SUMMARY RESULTS OF QUESTA MATERIALS USED IN THE
STUDY.
Table B1: Slake durability index, point load index, friction angle (degrees), ultimate (residual) friction
angle (degrees), paste pH, and SWI for samples tested for slake durability and point load. These data
include tests conducted by Viterbo, (2007).
Sample
Slake Durability
Point Load Index
Index %
(MPa)
Samples from trenches, test pits in GHN (rock pile material and
colluvium)
GHN-EHP-0001
97.42
Peak Friction
Angle (degrees)
Ultimate Friction
Angle (degrees)
Paste pH
SWI
41.4
38.6
2.68
4
42.3
35.6
GHN-EHP-0002
97.22
3.18
3
GHN-EHP-0003
95.24
3.04
3
GHN-EHP-0004
94.76
3.02
3
GHN-EHP-0007
96.68
5.43
2
GHN-HRS-0096
96.64
GHN-JRM-0001
93.99
GHN-JRM-0031
97.27
GHN-JRM-0037
96.67
3.3
43.7
38.2
3.29
3
44.9
33.7
2.14
2
4.46
4
40.8
34.2
2.91
4
GHN-JRM-0038
96.4
42.7
39.9
2.99
2
GHN-JRM-0039
96.79
41.8
41.4
3.06
2
GHN-JRM-0040
93.23
40.8
38.5
3.37
4
GHN-JRM-0047
80.93
42.8
39.8
2.99
2
GHN-KMD-0013
96.77
2.74
40.7
39.7
2.49
2
GHN-KMD-0014
98.44
8.2
46.9
44.3
3.19
2
GHN-KMD-0015
95.71
4.3
46.9
43.7
4.92
3
GHN-KMD-0016
95.64
3.38
43.2
39.3
5.74
3
GHN-KMD-0017
89.29
0.61
43.2
39.3
2.19
3
GHN-KMD-0018
95.17
6.7
42.7
37.6
3.5
3
GHN-KMD-0019
97.61
2.96
47.3
42.2
5.84
3
GHN-KMD-0026
96.59
3.7
42.7
42
3.8
3
GHN-KMD-0027
97.02
1.1
43.5
39.7
2.49
2
GHN-KMD-0028
93.99
2.6
2
GHN-KMD-0048
98.28
GHN-KMD-0050
96.69
GHN-KMD-0051
96.58
GHN-KMD-0052
98.13
GHN-KMD-0053
94.03
GHN-KMD-0054
5.25
6.18
2
5.71
4
7.19
3
39.9
37.2
4.3
40.5
37.9
5.08
2
3.3
41.9
40
4.32
2
97.23
5.72
44.5
38.4
3.93
3
GHN-KMD-0055
94.97
1.56
44.2
39
4.27
3
GHN-KMD-0056
97.41
6.09
49
41.2
4.85
2
GHN-KMD-0057
97.65
3.19
43.1
42.4
7.96
2
GHN-KMD-0062
96.7
2.13
41.7
38.7
4.43
2
GHN-KMD-0063
98.54
7.04
44.7
40.1
3.95
2
GHN-KMD-0064
97.06
6.03
2.67
3
125
Sample
GHN-KMD-0065
Slake Durability
Index %
95.86
Point Load Index
(MPa)
4.36
Peak Friction
Angle (degrees)
43.6
Ultimate Friction
Angle (degrees)
41.6
Paste pH
SWI
5.77
4
GHN-KMD-0071
96.74
41.1
35.9
4.35
4
GHN-KMD-0072
97.68
40.5
37.5
7.15
2
GHN-KMD-0073
95.93
43.5
39.5
6.55
2
GHN-KMD-0074
98.5
41.9
42.4
3.36
3
GHN-KMD-0077
92.84
42.8
38.4
2.45
4
GHN-KMD-0078
97.58
46.2
38.7
3.26
3
41.4
36.9
3.07
2
6.36
2
3.29
2
3.58
GHN-KMD-0079
98
GHN-KMD-0080
98.4
3.45
GHN-KMD-0081
97.32
7.29
43.4
40.7
GHN-KMD-0082
96.89
5.41
42.5
39.2
3.3
2
GHN-KMD-0088
96.21
43.7
36.8
2.63
2
GHN-KMD-0090
95.66
2.44
2
GHN-KMD-0092
97.39
42.9
41.4
3.72
3
GHN-KMD-0095
97.85
47.5
43.2
2.73
2
GHN-KMD-0096
97.42
41.7
31.8
2.56
2
GHN-KMD-0097
93.64
47.8
39.7
2.55
2
GHN-KMD-0100
97.19
44.4
40.3
3.42
2
GHN-LFG-0018
96.03
4.19
2
GHN-LFG-0020
97.97
GHN-LFG-0037
96.49
4.45
2
4.5
2
GHN-LFG-0041
GHN-LFG-0057
97.87
5.37
4
98.22
2.74
4
GHN-LFG-0060
96.78
3.03
2
GHN-LFG-0085
94.42
GHN-LFG-0086
93.98
GHN-LFG-0088
98.11
GHN-LFG-0089
97.69
GHN-LFG-0090
37.8
39.6
37.8
37.5
2.98
4
3.02
3
5.43
4
40.6
38.3
3.51
4
96.72
43.8
35
6.71
4
GHN-LFG-0091
95.6
37.2
36.8
2.46
5
GHN-RDL-0002
95.72
42.2
32.1
5.48
2
GHN-RDL-0003
95.32
3.75
3
GHN-SAW-0002
99.15
2.83
2
GHN-SAW-0003
99.15
45.1
44.2
3.2
5
GHN-SAW-0004
97.13
40.1
39
2.38
2
GHN-SAW-0005
98.32
44.6
36.7
4.06
3
GHN-SAW-0200
93.62
37.6
37.5
7.54
5
GHN-SAW-0201
96.81
43.4
37.6
2.74
5
GHN-VTM-0263
85.15
40.3
37.7
2.7
3
GHN-VTM-0293
82.23
41.6
34.6
4.07
3
GHN-VTM-0450
97.98
44.5
44.5
6.7
3
GHN-VTM-0453
93.93
45.2
37.6
4.55
3
6.49
126
Sample
GHN-VTM-0456
Slake Durability
Index %
95.66
Point Load Index
(MPa)
Peak Friction
Angle (degrees)
GHN-VTM-0508
92.98
3.45
4
GHN-VTM-0554
85.54
7.06
3
GHN-VTM-0598
98.5
2.7
3
GHN-VTM-0599
97.07
39.3
35.4
6.96
4
GHN-VTM-0603
95.89
42.1
42.6
3.42
4
GHN-VTM-0606
96.66
43
37.2
3.25
2
43.4
Ultimate Friction
Angle (degrees)
38.6
Paste pH
SWI
3.19
4
GHN-VTM-0607
97.2
43.7
41.7
2.66
2
GHN-VTM-0614
98.47
42.1
39.1
3.09
5
86.88
41.2
36.1
2.41
3
70.84
33.4
32.1
2.52
2
HAS-GJG-0007
90.2
45.5
34.2
2.98
4
HAS-GJG-0008
92.42
43
2.8
5
HAS-GJG-0009
94.01
2.05
4
HAS-GJG-0010
87.02
2.6
4
HAS-GJG-0014
81.24
2.41
4
Goat Hill alteration scar
GHR-VWL-0004
Hansen alteration scar
HAS-GJG-0006
Middle rock pile
MID-AAF-0001
95.61
MID-AAF-0002
97.33
MID-VTM-0002
97.64
4.36
42.5
38.1
2.41
4
38
37.9
2.62
3
44.5
36.7
4.16
4
96.78
45.1
35.2
2.04
4
MIN-AAF-0004
96.1
40.6
37.9
MIN-AAF-0006
95.98
MIN-AAF-0010
97.32
4.53
Goat Hill debris flow
MIN-AAF-0001
3.52
48.3
37.9
43.1
42.3
4.23
2
4.21
3
3.45
3
MIN-AAF-0012
98.9
3.5
MIN-AAF-0013
98.23
4.01
MIN-AAF-0015
99.09
3.25
MIN-GFA-0001
98.42
MIN-GFA-0003
99.46
MIN-GFA-0005
98.71
MIN-GFA-0009
98.57
3.8
45.2
35.5
3.58
3
MIN-SAN-0002
98.61
5.04
39.7
40.1
3.53
4
MIN-VTM-0002
98.65
4.64
MIN-VTM-0003
99.23
3.67
4
MIN-VTM-0004
98.88
4.21
4
MIN-VTM-0006
98.85
3.64
3
MIN-VTM-0007
98.87
4.22
3
MIN-VTM-0008
98.81
5.06
3
MIN-VTM-0009
98.58
3.81
3
4
4
3.28
2
50.1
36
2.75
50
37.8
3.2
4
5.95
45.7
33.8
3.87
4
2.61
39.2
34.9
3.24
3
4
4.45
4.86
127
3.16
3.44
Sample
Slake Durability
Index %
Samples from the open pit
PIT-LFG-0011
97.49
PIT-LFG-0013
92.33
PIT-RDL-0002
95.96
Point Load Index
(MPa)
Peak Friction
Angle (degrees)
Ultimate Friction
Angle (degrees)
37.8
37.5
Paste pH
SWI
6.19
3
2.55
3
4.85
3
Drill core in the open pit deposit
PIT-VCV-0001
97.41
6.5
8.25
3
PIT-VCV-0002
96.44
5
7.87
3
PIT-VCV-0003
98.19
4.1
7.42
3
PIT-VCV-0004
88.9
1.8
4.32
3
PIT-VCV-0005
94.26
3
4.75
3
PIT-VCV-0006
95.78
3.1
4.65
3
PIT-VCV-0007
95.62
1.8
8.06
3
PIT-VCV-0008
95.25
2.3
7.95
2
PIT-VCV-0009
98.47
5.3
8.31
4
PIT-VCV-0010
94.46
3.6
8.59
2
PIT-VCV-0011
92.15
4.8
8.46
1
PIT-VCV-0012
97.22
2.6
7.93
1
PIT-VCV-0013
97.37
3
8.2
1
PIT-VCV-0014
83.65
1.8
7.9
1
PIT-VCV-0015
99.01
5
8.61
1
PIT-VCV-0016
97.2
3.44
8.46
1
PIT-VCV-0017
94.09
5.57
8.22
1
PIT-VCV-0018
94.25
1.41
8.18
1
PIT-VCV-0019
91.7
3.5
7.4
1
PIT-VCV-0020
95.38
4.4
7.56
1
PIT-VCV-0021
87.17
1.3
7.98
1
PIT-VCV-0022
93.91
2.8
7.6
1
PIT-VCV-0023
95.3
5
7.52
1
PIT-VCV-0024
94.96
2.05
8.17
1
PIT-VCV-0025
96.17
1.75
7.43
1
PIT-VCV-0026
92.89
2.65
5.36
1
PIT-VCV-0027
99.08
4.96
8.24
1
PIT-VCV-0028
99.07
6.52
8.88
1
PIT-VCV-0029
98.65
6.9
8.55
1
PIT-VCV-0030
97.62
2.2
8.36
1
Samples from the open pit
PIT-VTM-0001
98.62
5.08
1
PIT-VTM-0002
99.48
6.72
1
Questa Pit Alteration scar
QPS-AAF-0001
97.1
46.5
39.8
3.09
1
QPS-AAF-0003
90.1
36.5
37
3.19
1
QPS-AAF-0005
97
43.1
38.7
2.98
1
128
Sample
Point Load Index
(MPa)
QPS-AAF-0009
Slake Durability
Index %
94.9
Peak Friction
Angle (degrees)
41.7
Ultimate Friction
Angle (degrees)
35.8
QPS-AAF-0020
94.69
QPS-AAF-0022
94.41
QPS-SAN-0002
QPS-VTM-0001
Paste pH
SWI
2.96
1
2.57
41.9
2.52
39
36.4
2.6
1
39.3
2.56
1
92.39
3.5
38.4
34
2.84
1
95.23
1.71
34.9
34.6
2.59
1
38.7
35.9
6.8
1
6.62
1
6.37
5
Outcrop samples
ROC-KMD-0001
99.51
ROC-KMD-0002
99.61
ROC-VTM-0032
98.29
41.2
39.7
SCS-LFG-0004
73.9
37.7
37.5
2.5
5
SCS-LFG-0005
92.43
42.9
44.8
2.72
5
SCS-LFG-0006
98.49
38.3
34.6
2.67
4
SCS-LFG-0007
98.5
45.7
37.9
3.21
5
SCS-LFG-0008
96.31
2.42
2
Straight Creek scar
Spring Gulch and Blind Gulch rockpiles
SPR-AAF-0001
97.21
3.92
38.9
36.3
3.48
1
SPR-AAF-0003
90.68
4.8
49.3
38.7
3.66
2
SPR-SAN-0002
97.96
2.08
38.1
34.2
4.22
5
SPR-VTM-0005
98.64
2.81
36.1
34.9
5.26
5
SPR-VTM-0008
98.49
3.39
40.4
35.8
6.22
5
SPR-VTM-0010
97.82
1.34
40.3
39.9
6.56
4
SPR-VTM-0012
96.9
42
38.5
3.29
4
SPR-VTM-0014
98.21
38.8
39.5
3.28
2
SPR-VTM-0017
67.67
SPR-VTM-0021
96.84
2.6
39.2
37.3
2.84
2
35.9
32.8
2.43
2
Sugar Shack South rock pile
SSS-AAF-0001
94.54
47.3
39.7
2.7
2
SSS-AAF-0004
96.94
1.62
41.1
38
2.65
2
SSS-AAF-0005
96.49
1.03
43.3
41.2
2.48
2
SSS-AAF-0007
93.12
2.19
43.7
38.6
2.48
2
SSS-AAF-0009
94.41
45
41.9
2.19
2
SSS-AAF-0011
85.33
2.54
2
SSS-AAF-0012
97.21
2.44
2
SSS-EHP-0002
98.45
2.08
6.17
2
SSS-EHP-0003
98.87
6.52
2
SSS-EHP-0011
98.66
7.41
2
SSS-EHP-0012
98.27
7.44
4
SSS-EHP-0014
99.13
6.6
4
SSS-EHP-0015
99.28
6.46
4
SSS-EHP-0017
99.16
4.4
4
SSS-EHP-0019
99.18
4.08
3
2.45
129
Sample
SSS-EHP-0020
Slake Durability
Index %
97.28
Point Load Index
(MPa)
Peak Friction
Angle (degrees)
Ultimate Friction
Angle (degrees)
SSS-EHP-0023
39.71
3.92
3
SSS-EHP-0025
98.95
4.01
3
SSS-EHP-0031
99.28
3.18
3
SSS-EHP-0032
99.52
3.52
3
SSS-EHP-0033
99.35
4.67
3
SSS-EHP-0034
99.5
5.71
3
SSS-EHP-0036
99.13
2.86
3
SSS-VEV-0001
90.76
4.26
3
SSS-VTM-0012
96.8
4.13
3
SSS-VTM-0600
96.8
2.19
Paste pH
SWI
4.21
3
38.9
35.9
4.49
3
4.37
45.7
40.3
3.01
3
Sugar Shack West rock pile
SSW-AAF-0001
97.07
SSW-AAF-0002
96.09
41.9
38.6
2.36
3
SSW-AAF-0005
82.3
1.68
42.1
37.5
2.95
3
SSW-AAF-0007
95.21
5.3
44.6
41.6
3.09
3
SSW-SAN-0002
96.07
2.51
41.6
39.8
2.9
3
SSW-SAN-0006
95.18
2.03
35.3
35.5
2.4
4
SSW-VTM-0001
98.61
41.8
35.5
2.64
4
SSW-VTM-0016
97.51
4.4
42.6
39.2
5.58
4
39.5
35.7
4.35
3
5.21
2
5.22
2
SSW-AAF-0009
4.01
3
SSW-VTM-0019
98.5
5.02
SSW-VTM-0022
98.61
4.57
SSW-VTM-0023
98.44
5.2
39.7
SSW-VTM-0026
97.86
41.1
41.2
2.44
2
SSW-VTM-0028
97.15
6.06
47.9
39.4
2.39
2
SSW-VTM-0030
96.63
4.19
37
37
3.58
2
37.3
Southwest Hansen alteration scar
SWH-GJG-0008
76.12
2.36
2
SWH-GJG-0009
64.52
2.37
3
SWH-GJG-0012
92.36
SWH-GJG-0015
96.16
35.1
35.2
Table B2: Summary of location of samples tested for point load and slake durability.
Sample
identification
number
GHN-EHP-0001
GHN-EHP-0002
GHN-EHP-0003
GHN-EHP-0004
GHN-EHP-0005
GHN-EHP-0006
Trench, test
pit, or drill
hole
identification
number
LFG-017
LFG-017
LFG-013
LFG-013
LFG-013
LFG-013
Sample
description
UTM
easting
(m)
UTM
northing
(m)
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
453688
453690.9
453678.4
453680.9
453681.7
453681.2
4062313.3
4062314.5
4062414.8
4062415.8
4062416.1
4062415.9
130
Elevation
(ft)
9651.2
9651.2
9712.1
9712.1
9712.1
9712.1
Sample location
top layer
15-25 ft, lowest layer
0-3 ft
N wall
N wall
2.41
2
2.64
5
Sample
identification
number
GHN-EHP-0007
GHN-HRS-0096
GHN-JRM-0001
Trench, test
pit, or drill
hole
identification
number
LFG-013
LFG-012
GHN-JRM-0002
Sample
description
UTM
easting
(m)
UTM
northing
(m)
Elevation
(ft)
soil
soil
soil
453681.2
453693.1
453710
4062415.9
4062353.7
4062089
9712.1
9692.7
9764
soil
453710
4062089
9764
GHN-JRM-0022
GHN-JRM-0027
GHN-JRM-0031
GHN-JRM-0037
GHN-JRM-0038
GHN-JRM-0039
GHN-JRM-0040
GHN-JRM-0047
GHN-KMD-0013
GHN-KMD-0014
GHN-KMD-0015
GHN-KMD-0016
LFG-009
LFG-009
LFG-009
LFG-011
LFG-011
LFG-011
LFG-011
LFG-011
LFG-006
LFG-006
LFG-006
LFG-006
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soli
soil
soil
453649.8
453644.7
453645
453664.8
453670.1
453670.8
453670
453669.4
453711.1
453717.8
453722.7
453725.1
4062137.5
4062115.3
4062115.3
4062334.2
4062340
4062334.3
4062333.4
4062334.8
4062142.2
4062144.5
4062141.5
4062141.4
9605.1
9599.3
9598.5
9666.5
9666.5
9659
9659
9663.1
9734.1
9737.2
9735.8
9736.1
GHN-KMD-0017
GHN-KMD-0018
GHN-KMD-0019
GHN-KMD-0026
GHN-KMD-0027
GHN-KMD-0028
GHN-KMD-0048
GHN-KMD-0050
GHN-KMD-0051
GHN-KMD-0052
GHN-KMD-0053
GHN-KMD-0054
GHN-KMD-0055
GHN-KMD-0056
GHN-KMD-0057
GHN-KMD-0062
GHN-KMD-0063
GHN-KMD-0064
GHN-KMD-0065
GHN-KMD-0071
GHN-KMD-0072
GHN-KMD-0073
GHN-KMD-0074
GHN-KMD-0077
GHN-KMD-0078
GHN-KMD-0079
GHN-KMD-0080
GHN-KMD-0081
GHN-KMD-0082
GHN-KMD-0088
GHN-KMD-0090
GHN-KMD-0092
LFG-006
LFG-006
LFG-006
LFG-006
LFG-006
LFG-006
LFG-007
LFG-007
LFG-007
LFG-007
LFG-007
LFG-007
LFG-007
LFG-007
LFG-007
LFG-007
LFG-007
LFG-007
LFG-007
LFG-008
LFG-008
LFG-008
LFG-008
LFG-008
LFG-008
LFG-008
LFG-008
LFG-008
LFG-008
LFG-008
LFG-008
LFG-008
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
453695.9
453698.2
453726.7
453728.8
453707.9
453706.9
453691.8
453704.2
453695.1
453692.6
453684.7
453682
453676.5
453704.9
453695.8
453682.4
453677.2
453694.9
453698.9
453678.7
453671.4
453666.8
453680.2
453670.2
453671.7
453679.3
453677.5
453675.9
453656
453657.4
453655
453661.9
4062143.2
4062143.2
4062144.1
4062141.1
4062147.9
4062141.6
4062131.5
4062145.4
4062145.8
4062145.9
4062146.2
4062146.3
4062146.5
4062139.5
4062139.9
4062140.5
4062140.7
4062131.9
4062131.7
4062137.5
4062137.4
4062137.4
4062137.5
4062134.1
4062134.1
4062137.5
4062137.5
4062137.5
4062127
4062127.1
4062126.9
4062133.8
9730.9
9730.5
9738.6
9736.1
9738.5
9726.8
9688.4
9702.8
9698
9697
9693.7
9692.6
9691.3
9696.9
9694
9689.8
9688.1
9690.1
9691.5
9649.2
9646.1
9644.1
9649.8
9643.7
9644.4
9651.9
9650.7
9650
9635.3
9635.4
9634.2
9640
131
Sample location
N wall
in yellow-orange red material from north
tensiometer pit, 60-70 cm below ground level
in gray material from north tensiometer pit, 70-80
cm below ground level
bench 22, N Wall, 86 ft from 22NW
bench 23, 80ft from 23SW, S wall
unit O right above GHN-JRM-0030
Bench 9, N wall, 52ft E of 9NW peg
Bench 8, N wall, 33ft 8NW peg
Bench 9, N wall, 90-95ft E of 9NW
Bench 9, N wall, 98-105 ft E of 9NW peg, 10ft W
of 8NE
Bench 9, N wall, 2ft E of 9NW peg
Bench 9, N wall, 10ft E of 9NW peg
Bench 8, N wall, 63 ft 8NW
bench 9, N wall, 110 ft 9NW
bench 7, Nwall, 10 ft 7NW
bench 10, S wall, 3 ft
bench 15 north wall, 52 ft 15NW
floor of bench 12, 84 ft east of 12NW
bench 12, 54 ft east 12NW
floor bench 12, 46 ft east 12NW
floor bench 12, 20 ft east 12NW
floor bench 12, 11 ft east 12NW
floor bench 12, -7 ft east 12NW
bench 14, north wall, 97 ft 14NW
bench 14, north wall, 67 ft from 14NW
bench 14, north wall, 23 ft from 14NW
bench 14, north wall, 6 ft from 14NW
bench 15, north wall, 57 ft from 15NW
bench 15, north wall, 70 ft from 15NW
bench 18, north wall, 97 ft 18NW
bench 18, north wall, 73 ft 18NW
bench 18, north wall, 58 ft 18NW
bench 18, north wall, 102 ft 18NW
bench 19, south wall, 71 ft 19SW
bench 19, south wall, 76 ft 19SW
bench 18, north wall, 99 ft 18NW
bench 18, north wall, 938 ft 18NW
bench 18, north wall, 88 ft 18NW
bench 20, south wall, 42 ft 20NW
bench 20, south wall, 36 ft 20SW
bench 20, south wall, 28 ft 20SW
bench 19, north wall, 44 ft 19SW
Sample
identification
number
Sample
description
UTM
easting
(m)
UTM
northing
(m)
GHN-KMD-0095
GHN-KMD-0096
GHN-KMD-0097
GHN-LFG-0018
GHN-LFG-0020
GHN-LFG-0037
Trench, test
pit, or drill
hole
identification
number
LFG-008
LFG-008
LFG-008
LFG-0003
LFG-0003
LFG-0004
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
453656
453658.4
453658.4
453747
453747
453742.8
4062118.6
4062118.8
4062118.8
4062150
4062150
4062149
9638.6
9640.3
9640.3
9746
9746
9744.2
GHN-LFG-0041
LFG-0003
soil
453759.7
4062146.9
9736
GHN-LFG-0057
GHN-LFG-0060
GHN-LFG-0085
GHN-LFG-0086
GHN-LFG-0088
GHN-LFG-0089
GHN-LFG-0090
GHN-LFG-0091
GHN-RDL-0002
GHN-SAW-0002
GHN-SAW-0003
GHN-SAW-0004
GHN-SAW-0005
GHN-SAW-0200
GHN-SAW-0201
GHN-VTM-0200
GHN-VTM-0201
GHN-VTM-0293
GHN-VTM-0450
GHN-VTM-0453
GHN-VTM-0456
GHN-VTM-0508
GHN-VTM-0554
GHN-VTM-0598
GHN-VTM-0599
GHN-VTM-0603
GHN-VTM-0606
GHN-VTM-0607
GHN-VTM-0614
GHR-VWL-0001
GHR-VWL-0002
GHS-VWL-0004
LFG-005
LFG-005
LFG-005
LFG-005
LFG-005
LFG-005
LFG-005
LFG-005
soil
soil
soil
soil
rock
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
453733.8
453720.5
453731.4
453731.4
453734.1
453747.8
453740.1
453759.8
453791
453680.1
453682.1
453657.3
453650.6
453650.5
453647
453704.4
453708.8
453673.3
453647.7
453643.3
453764.3
453687.5
453688.1
453661.6
453661.6
453661.6
453648
453647
453652
453071
453071
453101
4062146
4062141
4062143.3
4062143.3
4062140.3
4062137.6
4062141.8
4062135.3
4062312
4062296.6
4062296.6
4062290.3
4062281.8
4062394.3
4062393.8
4062142.6
4062145.2
4062140.8
4062115.6
4062115.1
4062134.4
4062400
4062390.2
4062434.8
4062434.8
4062434.8
4062394.8
4062393.8
4062391.7
4061295
4061293
4061551
9765.1
9749.9
9759.7
9759.7
9755
9752.4
9758
9749.2
9853
9615.2
9615.2
9609.6
9609.6
9623.4
9648.2
9735.2
9735.5
9686.9
9600.7
9598.7
9749.3
9740
9708.7
9651.2
9651.2
9651.2
9648.2
9648.2
9647.4
8966
8966
8494
459288
4062957
8880
459288
459297
4062957
4062858
8880
scar gully
Hanson scar
454394
454395
452374
452374
4060686
4060694
4059911
4059912
9431
9441
7904
7904
near MID-KXB-0003
near MID-KXB-0003
in forest SW of gas pipeline to admin bldg
in forest SW of gas pipeline to admin bldg
LFG-018
LFG-018
LFG-011
LFG-011
LFG-021
LFG-022
LFG-006
LFG-006
LFG-007
LFG-009
LFG-009
LFG-005
LFG-010
LFG-015
LFG-019
LFG-019
LFG-019
LFG-022
LFG-022
LFG-021
HAS-GJG-0007
HAS-GJG-0010
HAS-GJG-0014
MID-AAF-0001
MID-VTM-0002
MIN-AAF-0001
MIN-AAF-0006
GJG-001
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
rock
rock
rock
rock
soil
soil
soil
soil
rock
rock
rock
Scar
outcrop
rock
rock and
soil
soil
soil
colluvium
colluvium
132
Elevation
(ft)
Sample location
15 ft from 17SW, bench 18, south wall
23 ft from 17SW, bench 18, south wall
top of GHN
top of GHN
1 bench of test pit LFG-0004, see test pit log for
more informations
45.6 ft from point 11 of neutron density probe
measurements
1st bench, north wall, 84 ft east of NW0
bench 4
bench 3, 47 ft from 3NW
bench 3, 47 ft from 3NW
bench 4, 44-45 ft from 4NW
bench 4, 90-105 ft from 4NW
bench 3, 76 from 3NW
bench 4
Bench 9, North Face, 30-35 ft 9NW
Bench 8, North Face, 6-12 ft 8NW
bench 14 N wall -7 to -2 ft from 14 NW peg
bench 23 S wall, 90 ft from 23SW
bench 23 S wall, 75 ft and 5inches from 23SW
natural ground surface, yellow material
S wall, 60 ft west of SE corner
N wall
north wall
north wall
north wall
same as GHN-VTM-0623
same as GHN-VTM-0622
large ferricrete on east slope of Goathill scar
base of ferricrete
contact of amalia tuff and a breccia on side of
alteration scar
in gully of scar
Sample
identification
number
Trench, test
pit, or drill
hole
identification
number
MIN-AAF-0010
debris
flow
MIN-AAF-0012
MIN-AAF-0013
debris
flow
debris
flow
debris
flow
debris
flow
MIN-AAF-0015
MIN-GFA-0001
MIN-GFA-0003
MIN-GFA-0005
MIN-GFA-0006
debris
flow
debris
flow
MIN-GFA-0007
MIN-GFA-0009
MIN-SAN-0001
debris
flow
soil
MIN-VTM-0002
MIN-VTM-0003
MIN-VTM-0004
MIN-VTM-0006
MIN-VTM-0007
MIN-VTM-0008
MIN-VTM-0009
PIT-LFG-0011
PIT-LFG-0013
PIT-RDL-0002
PIT-VCV-0001
PIT-VCV-0002
PIT-VCV-0003
PIT-VCV-0004
PIT-VCV-0005
PIT-VCV-0006
PIT-VCV-0007
PIT-VCV-0008
PIT-VCV-0009
PIT-VCV-0010
PIT-VCV-0011
PIT-VCV-0012
PIT-VCV-0013
PIT-VCV-0014
PIT-VCV-0015
PIT-VCV-0016
PIT-VCV-0017
PIT-VCV-0018
PIT-VCV-0019
PIT-VCV-0020
PIT-VCV-0021
PIT-VCV-0022
PIT-VCV-0023
Sample
description
VTM-001
VTM-001
VTM-001
VTM-001
VTM-001
VTM-001
538420
538420
315328
538420
538420
538420
538420
538420
538420
538420
538420
538420
538420
538420
631587
631587
631587
631587
480680
480680
480680
480680
480680
colluvium
colluvium
colluvium
colluvium
colluvium
colluvium
soil
soil
rock
core
core
core
core
core
core
core
core
core
core
core
core
core
core
core
core
core
core
core
core
core
core
core
UTM
easting
(m)
UTM
northing
(m)
Sample location
452366
4059925
7900
west of MIN-AAF-0001
452363
452374
4059922
4059930
7861
7858
west of MIN-AAF-0001
north of MIN-AAF-0012
452366
4059925
7900
north of MIN-AAF-0012
452331
405989
7791
452331
4059891
7791
452331
452331
4059891
4059891
7791
7791
452331
405989
7791
452331
452369
405989
4059919
7791
7966
debris flow, site of in situ test MIN-AAF-0001
along road above headframe, below powerline,
alunite outcrop
455648.3
455648.3
455648.3
455648.3
455648.3
455648.3
453845
453659
453822
453678.2
453678.2
453086.6
453678.2
453678.2
453678.2
453678.2
453678.2
453678.2
453678.2
453678.2
453678.2
453678.2
453678.2
454185.6
454185.6
454185.6
454185.6
4060959.7
4060959.7
4060959.7
4060959.7
4060959.7
4060959.7
4061403
4061819
4061505
4061878.7
4061878.7
4061207.8
4061878.7
4061878.7
4061878.7
4061878.7
4061878.7
4061878.7
4061878.7
4061878.7
4061878.7
4061878.7
4061878.7
4062158.5
4062158.5
4062158.5
4062158.5
133
Elevation
(ft)
8120
8120
8120
8120
8120
8120
9932
9947
9912
9630
9625
8557
9901
9911
9918
9318
9315
9305
8819
8827
9490
9479
9471
8140
8346
8175
8182
Crest of Goathill North Scar
core shed
core shed
core shed
core shed
core shed
core shed
core shed
core shed
core shed
core shed
core shed
core shed
core shed
core shed
core shed
core shed
core shed
core shed
core shed
core shed
core shed
core shed
core shed
Sample
identification
number
PIT-VCV-0024
PIT-VCV-0025
PIT-VCV-0026
PIT-VCV-0027
PIT-VCV-0028
PIT-VCV-0029
PIT-VCV-0030
PIT-VTM-0001
PIT-VTM-0002
QPS-AAF-0019
Trench, test
pit, or drill
hole
identification
number
480680
590539
590539
590539
590539
590539
590539
QPS-AAF-0020
QPS-AAF-0022
QPS-SAN-0001
QPS-VTM-0001
ROC-KMD-0001
ROC-KMD-0002
ROC-VTM-0032
SCS-LFG-0004
SCS-LFG-0005
SCS-LFG-0006
SCS-LFG-0007
SCS-LFG-0008
SGS-KXB-0002
SGS-KXB-0004
SGS-KXB-0006
SGS-KXB-0013
SGS-KXB-0033
SGS-LFG-0001
SPR-AAF-0001
SPR-AAF-0003
SPR-SAN-0001
SPR-VTM-0005
SPR-VTM-0008
SPR-VTM-0010
SPR-VTM-0011
SPR-VTM-0014
SPR-VTM-0017
SPR-VTM-0019
SPR-VTM-0021
SSSAAF-0001
SSS-AAF-0004
SSS-AAF-0005
SSS-AAF-0007
SSS-AAF-0009
SSS-AAF-0011
SSS-AAF-0012
SSS-EHP-0001
COP-10
COP-10
COP-10
COP-10
COP-7
LFG-0001
SI-50
Sample
description
core
core
core
core
core
core
core
rock
rock
alteration
scar
alteration
scar
alteration
scar
waste rock
alteration
scar
soil
rock
soil
soil
soil
soil
soil
rock
cuttings
cuttings
cuttings
cuttings
cuttings
soil
waste rock
rock pile
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
cuttings
UTM
easting
(m)
UTM
northing
(m)
454039.9
454039.9
454039.9
454039.9
454039.9
454039.9
453800
443841
454135
4062034.6
4062034.6
4062034.6
4062034.6
4062034.6
4062034.6
4061694
4061908
4062582
9467
core shed
core shed
core shed
core shed
core shed
core shed
core shed
top of pit
top of pit
bench above pit
454135
4062582
9467
bench above pit
454135
4062582
9467
bench above pit
454146
454122
4062551
4062568
9581
9463
pit scar in between 2 in-situ test pits
bench above pit
466507
459926
459973
459973
459973
459973
455469.2
455469.2
455469.2
455469.2
455515.3
455162
455245
455245
455255
455255
455257
455257
455257
454439
454439
454440
454440
454131
454131
454132
454132
454132
454132
454132
454404
4055963
4064047
4063905
4063905
4063905
4063905
4061388
4061388
4061388
4061388
4061227.5
4061343
4062313
4062313
4062285
4062367
4062287
4062287
4062287
4062735
4062735
4062735
4062735
4060898
4060898
4060901
4060901
4060902
4060901
4060902
4060242
134
Elevation
(ft)
9276
9273
9543
7667
9076
9067
9404
9429
9433
9433
9433
9433
8435.89
8545.89
8545.89
8235.89
8404.23
Sample location
La Bocita campground at base of andesite outcrop
La Bocita campground at base of andesite outcrop
Fourth of July Canyon
Sulphur Gulch South
9225
9225
9314
9320
9322
9322
9322
9539
9539
9539
9539
9636
9636
9647
9647
9647
9647
9624
8756
near in-situ test SPR
top of Spring Gulch at bend in road
top of Spring Gulch at bend in road
top of Spring Gulch at bend in road
top of Spring Gulch at bend in road
Spring Gulch near old powder magazine
Spring Gulch near old powder magazine
Spring Gulch near old powder magazine
Spring Gulch near old powder magazine
top of SSS
top of SSS
top of SSS
top of SSS
top of SSS
top of SSS
top of SSS
Sugar Shack South rock pile, lower bench
Sample
identification
number
SSS-EHP-0002
SSS-EHP-0003
SSS-EHP-0006
SSS-EHP-0011
SSS-EHP-0012
SSS-EHP-0014
SSS-EHP-0015
SSS-EHP-0016
SSS-EHP-0017
SSS-EHP-0019
SSS-EHP-0020
SSS-EHP-0021
SSS-EHP-0022
SSS-EHP-0023
SSS-EHP-0025
SSS-EHP-0029
SSS-EHP-0030
SSS-EHP-0031
SSS-EHP-0032
SSS-EHP0033
SSS-EHP-0034
SSS-EHP-0036
SSS-VEV-0001
SSS-VTM-0010
SSS-VTM-0012
SSS-VTM-0600
SSW-AAF-0001
SSW-AAF-0002
SSW-AAF-0005
SSW-AAF-0007
SSW-SAN-0001
SSW-SAN-0007
SSW-VTM-0001
SSW-VTM-0002
SSW-VTM-0016
SSW-VTM-0019
SSW-VTM-0022
SSW-VTM-0023
SSW-VTM-0026
SSW-VTM-0028
SSW-VTM-0030
SWH-GJG-0008
SWH-GJG-0009
SWH-GJG-0012
SWH-GJG-0015
Trench, test
pit, or drill
hole
identification
number
SI-50
SI-50
SI-50
SI-50
SI-50
SI-50
SI-50
SI-50
SI-50
SI-50
SI-50
SI-50
SI-50
SI-50
SI-50
SI-50
SI-50
SI-50
SI-50
SI-50
SI-50
SI-50
Sample
description
cuttings
cuttings
cuttings
cuttings
cuttings
cuttings
cuttings
cuttings
cuttings
cuttings
cuttings
cuttings
cuttings
cuttings
cuttings
cuttings
cuttings
cuttings
cuttings
cuttings
cuttings
rock
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
waste rock
rock
rock
rock with
soil
rock with
soil
UTM
easting
(m)
UTM
northing
(m)
Sample location
454404
454404
454404
454404
454404
454404
454404
454404
454404
454404
454404
454404
454404
454404
454404
454404
454404
454404
454404
454404
454404
454404
454286
454120
454110
454120
453672
453672
453699
453687
453682
453975
453963
453963
453841
453841
453838
453838
453832
453832
453831
458732
458732
458732
4060242
4060242
4060242
4060242
4060242
4060242
4060242
4060242
4060242
4060242
4060242
4060242
4060242
4060242
4060242
4060242
4060242
4060242
4060242
4060242
4060242
4060242
4060187
4060712
4060712
4060712
4060616
4060617
4060554
4060551
4060534
4060822
4060829
4060829
4060491
4060491
4060499
4060499
4060592
4060592
4060588
4062439
4062439
4062439
8747
8737
8707
8667
8657
8637
8627
8617
8607
8587
8577
8567
8567
8547
8527
8497
8487
8477
8467
8457
8447
8427
8756
9703
9696
9703
9022
9028
9038
8997
8969
9676
9656
9656
9326
9326
9322
9322
9520
9520
9520
8710
8710
8721
Sugar Shack South rock pile, lower bench
Sugar Shack South rock pile, lower bench
Sugar Shack South rock pile, lower bench
Sugar Shack South rock pile, lower bench
Sugar Shack South rock pile, lower bench
Sugar Shack South rock pile, lower bench
Sugar Shack South rock pile, lower bench
Sugar Shack South rock pile, lower bench
Sugar Shack South rock pile, lower bench
Sugar Shack South rock pile, lower bench
Sugar Shack South rock pile, lower bench
Sugar Shack South rock pile, lower bench
Sugar Shack South rock pile, lower bench
Sugar Shack South rock pile, lower bench
Sugar Shack South rock pile, lower bench
Sugar Shack South rock pile, lower bench
Sugar Shack South rock pile, lower bench
Sugar Shack South rock pile, lower bench
Sugar Shack South rock pile, lower bench
Sugar Shack South rock pile, lower bench
Sugar Shack South rock pile, lower bench
Sugar Shack South rock pile, lower bench
same as SSS-JMS-0001, lower lysimeter
near repeater site on SSS
near repeater site on SSS
near repeater site on SSS
middle road near drill hole 39-93
middle road near drill hole 39-93
middle road, south end
Middle road
458732
4062439
8746
Lower SWH
135
Elevation
(ft)
from the same location as SSW-SAN-0005
edge of SSW
edge of SSW
arroyo, SWH scars
Lower SWH
Lower SWH
Table B3: Summary of hand specimen descriptions of samples tested for point load and slake durability.
Sample
identification
number
GHN-EHP-0001
GHN-EHP-0002
GHN-EHP-0003
GHN-EHP-0004
GHN-EHP-0005
GHN-EHP-0006
GHN-EHP-0007
GHN-HRS-0096
GHN-JRM-0001
GHN-JRM-0002
Field description
Color
Grain size
Alteration
unit AE
unit AF
rubble zone
colluvium possible shear
colluvium
bedrock
bedrock
colluvium
Unit J
Unit N
orange brown
gray with little yellow
yellow
black
gryey bron
gray
brown
yellow
orange to yellowish green
Brown
sandy gravel with clay
sandy gravel
sandy gravel with cobbles, clay
silt-clay with organics
sandy clay
clay
sandy gravel
fines with g ravel
clayey gravel
well graded gravel, fine to
coarse gravel
oxidized
weathered
oxidized
GHN-JRM-0008
GHN-JRM-0009
Unit N
Unit J
Dark Brown
Light greay (light yellowish)
GHN-JRM-0022
GHN-JRM-0027
GHN-JRM-0031
GHN-JRM-0037
GHN-JRM-0038
GHN-JRM-0039
GHN-JRM-0040
Unit K
Unit K
Unit O
unit AC
unit AD
unit AD
unit AD
grey
GHN-JRM-0047
GHN-KMD-0013
GHN-KMD-0014
unit AD
Unit O
Unit K
orange brown
mottled gray, brown, orange yellow brown
mottled gray, yellow, brown
clayey gravel with cobbles, boulder
mottled gray, brown, yellow
clayey gravel with cobbles,
boulder
mottled gray, brown, orange yellow brown
dark brown w/ orange
clayey gravel
dark greenish gray
sandy gravel
GHN-KMD-0015
Unit R
dark brown w/ orange
sandy gravel
GHN-KMD-0016
GHN-KMD-0017
brownish gray w/ green
grayish yellow
sandy gravel
sandy clay
dark orange brown
clayey gravel
grayish brown
clayey gravel
minor oxidation;
Fe, Mn oxides
epidote weathered
GHN-KMD-0026
GHN-KMD-0027
GHN-KMD-0028
GHN-KMD-0048
GHN-KMD-0050
GHN-KMD-0051
GHN-KMD-0052
GHN-KMD-0053
GHN-KMD-0054
GHN-KMD-0055
GHN-KMD-0056
GHN-KMD-0057
Unit S
Unit I, sandy clay w/ some
gravel
Unit J, clayey gravel with
coarse gravel
Unit O, clayey gravel with
some coarse gravel
Unit M
Unit N
Unit N
Unit S
Unit O
Unit O
Unit K
contact between Unit N-J
Unit J
Unit I
Unit V
Unit O
orange-brown
dark orange
bright greenish orange
dark brown to black
brown
dark brown
purplish gray
brown
orange brown
yellow brown
brown and orange
brown and greenish gray
clayey gravel
clayey sand with gravel
clayey gravel
sandy gravel
oxidized
oxidized
oxidized
propollytic
sand gravel with clay
sandy gravel
GHN-KMD-0062
GHN-KMD-0063
GHN-KMD-0064
GHN-KMD-0065
Unit N
Unit J
Unit U
Unit V
orange brown
orange brown
orange brown
dark brown to purplish black
sandy gravel with clay
clayey gravel with sand
clayey gravel with sand
sandy gravel with some cobbles
weathered
weathered
proplytitic
weathered
weathered
weathered
propolytic
GHN-KMD-0018
GHN-KMD-0019
argilic +
weathering
clay to gravel
clay-sand-pebble
136
weathered
weathered
weathered
acid weathered
highly weathered
propylitic
weathered
less weathered
oxidized
weathered
little weathering,
epidote alteration
weathered epidote
to iron, Mn oxide
epidote
QSP Altered
Sample
identification
number
GHN-KMD-0071
GHN-KMD-0072
GHN-KMD-0073
GHN-KMD-0074
GHN-KMD-0077
GHN-KMD-0078
GHN-KMD-0079
GHN-KMD-0080
GHN-KMD-0081
GHN-KMD-0082
GHN-KMD-0088
GHN-KMD-0090
GHN-KMD-0092
GHN-KMD-0095
GHN-KMD-0096
GHN-KMD-0097
GHN-LFG-0018
GHN-LFG-0020
GHN-LFG-0037
GHN-LFG-0041
GHN-LFG-0057
GHN-LFG-0060
GHN-LFG-0085
GHN-LFG-0086
GHN-LFG-0088
GHN-LFG-0089
GHN-LFG-0090
GHN-LFG-0091
GHN-RDL-0002
GHN-RDL-0003
GHN-SAW-0002
GHN-SAW-0003
GHN-SAW-0004
GHN-SAW-0005
GHN-SAW-0200
GHN-SAW-0201
GHN-VTM-0200
Field description
Color
Grain size
Alteration
Unit U, V contact
coarse zone in Unit O
Unit O
Unit U
Unit U
Unit U
Unit U
Unit S
Unit R
Unit O
Unit O
Unit O
Unit O1
Unit C
Unit J
Unit O
traffic zone
traffic zone
Unit H
rubble zone
Unit J
rubble zone
Unit K
Unit N
Unit O
rubble zone
Unit P
colluvium
brown orange
brown
brown
brown
dark brown
orange brown
medium brown, orange
dark brown
brown
dark brown
yellow orange
orange brown
greenish
yellow gray
clay to cobble
cobbles
cobbles to clay
weathered
weathered
weathered
fine sand, clay
clay to large cobble
clay to large cobble
oxidized
oxidized
orange
brown/olive
clay to gravel
gravel sand with some fine
gravel with clay and boulders
weathered
oxidized
oxidized
clay to rubble
gravel with fines
fine porphyritic
fine
oxidized
QSP
QSP
brown orange
brown to gray
gray to purple
brown
yellow to green to brown
white to light gray
white to light gray
gray
gray
yellow
brown
olive gray to dark brown
light-medium brown
orange brown
gravel with fines
gravel with fines
clay to cobbles
clay oxidized
light brown to orange
clay to boulders
oxidized clay
orange yellow with gray
clay to large cobbles
oxidized
coarse layer
sandy gravel with clay
clay to cobble
fine
fine grained
mostly cobbles with some claysand matrix
clay to gravel
clay to cobble
clay
weathering
weathering
oxidized
GHN-VTM-0263
GHN-VTM-0293
Unit I
GHN-VTM-0450
GHN-VTM-0453
GHN-VTM-0456
GHN-VTM-0508
GHN-VTM-0554
GHN-VTM-0598
Unit O
Unit O (clay rich)
weathered bedrock
colluvium
bedrock
rubble zone
dk brown
orange brown some gray
yellowish to greenish brown
brown
gray to red gray to green gray
yelow to gray
GHN-VTM-0599
GHN-VTM-0603
GHN-VTM-0606
saprolitic bedrock
weathered bedrock
colluvium
gray
black brown
brown
137
oxidixed
grey orange
unit AF
unit AF
unit AD
Unit E
colluvium
colluvium
Unit N orange brown; clay to
cobbles
Unit N; clay to boulders (up
to 30cm)
Unit I
GHN-VTM-0201
clay to cobble
clay to cobble
clay to cobble
clay to cobble
weathered
weathered
weathered
Sample
identification
number
GHN-VTM-0607
GHN-VTM-0614
GHR-VWL-0001
GHR-VWL-0002
GHS-VWL-0004
HAS-GJG-0006
HAS-GJG-0007
HAS-GJG-0008
HAS-GJG-0009
HAS-GJG-0010
HAS-GJG-0014
Field description
Color
Grain size
rubbe zone
colluvium
yellow gray
greenish gray to white gray
reddish brown
orange brown
dark brown to orange
boulders with fines
Ferricrete
andesite
andesite
rock fragments and residual
soil
gray to white andesite
gray to white andesite
gry, brown, green
gray unweathered
brown to tan
Alteration
acid sulfate
acid sulfate
strong QSP of host
rock
QSP, prop
QSP
cobbles with fines
gray, white
gray, white
light gray to brown to olive
mottled
yellow brown
cobbles with fines
cobbles with fines
gravel with slit and some clay
QSP
QSP
qsp
gravel with fines
MID-VTM-0002
MIN-AAF-0001
yellow brown
tan
MIN-AAF-0006
tan
boulders to clay
gravelly sand with boulders and
fines
gravelly sand with boulders and
fines
cobbles to clay
cobbles to clay
cobbles to clay
cobbles to clay
boulders to clay
boulder to clay
boulders to clay
gravel to fine silt
cobble to fine silt
coarse gravel to sandy
cobbles to clay
fine to coarse
cobbles to clay/silt
cobbles to clay/silt
cobbles to clay/silt
cobbles to clay/silt
cobbles to clay/silt
cobbles to clay/silt
sandy, gravel, silty-clay
Clay and Sand silty matrix
fine grained
QSP of Amalia
and prophyry
QSP
QSP
MID-AAF-0001
MIN-AAF-0010
MIN-AAF-0012
MIN-AAF-0013
MIN-AAF-0015
MIN-GFA-0001
MIN-GFA-0003
MIN-GFA-0005
MIN-GFA-0006
MIN-GFA-0007
MIN-GFA-0009
MIN-SAN-0001
MIN-VTM-0002
MIN-VTM-0003
MIN-VTM-0004
MIN-VTM-0006
MIN-VTM-0007
MIN-VTM-0008
MIN-VTM-0009
PIT-LFG-0011
PIT-LFG-0013
PIT-RDL-0002
PIT-VCV-0001
PIT-VCV-0002
PIT-VCV-0003
PIT-VCV-0004
well graded soil
well graded debris flow
Amalia
andesite
andesite
andesite
Amalia
light brown
light brown
light brown
light brown
brown
brown
brow
brown
brown
light redish brown
light brown
pink, white
light brown
light brown
light brown
light brown
dark brown
light brown
dark brown to black
yellowish Brown
light gray
gray brown
light green to gray
light green to gray
white to gray
PIT-VCV-0005
PIT-VCV-0006
PIT-VCV-0007
PIT-VCV-0008
Amalia Tuff
Amalia Tuff
andesite breccia
porphytic andesite
gray/light yellow
gray-white
green gray
gray-green
PIT-VCV-0009
PIT-VCV-0010
andesite breccia
Goat Hill porphyry
white gray
well graded debris flow
well graded debris flow
well graded
well graded
well graded
poorly graded gravel
poorly garded sandy gravel
well graded
rock
debris flow, unit A2
debris flow, unit A3
debris flow, unit A5
debris flow, unit A6
debris flow, unit A1
debris flow, unit A1
1-3 cm
138
clasts to 2 inch
1-2 mm phenocrysts
QSP
QSP
QSP
QSP
QSP
QSP
QSP
QSP
QSP
acid sulfate
fresh weathered
highly weathered
QSP/oxidized
prophylitic
prophylitic
QSP/yellow
oxidation
slight oxidized
slight oxidized
prophylitic
prophylitic
chlorite
prophylitic
prophylitic
Sample
identification
number
PIT-VCV-0011
Field description
Color
Grain size
Alteration
Goat Hill porphyry
white gray
1-5 mm phenocrysts
PIT-VCV-0012
PIT-VCV-0013
PIT-VCV-0014
PIT-VCV-0015
PIT-VCV-0016
PIT-VCV-0017
PIT-VCV-0018
PIT-VCV-0019
PIT-VCV-0020
PIT-VCV-0021
PIT-VCV-0022
PIT-VCV-0023
PIT-VCV-0024
PIT-VCV-0025
PIT-VCV-0026
PIT-VCV-0027
PIT-VCV-0028
PIT-VCV-0029
PIT-VCV-0030
porphyritic andesite
porphyritic andesite
porphyritic andesite
aplite
granite
andesite
granite
andesite
andesite
andesite
andesite
prophylitic andesite
andesite breccia
oxidized porphyry
oxidized porphyry
andesite
aplite
andesite
andesite
green
green gray
gray
pink
pink with black
gray, slight green
white, gray, green
gray brown
gray brown
gray brown
gray green
green
green, purple
gray, white, brown
gray, white, brown
gray brown
pink
gray
gray brown
1-3 mm phenocrysts
1-3 mm phenocrysts
1-5 mm phenocrysts
prophylitic
chlorite
prophylitic
prophylitic
QSP, pyrite
prophylitic
prophylitic
PIT-VTM-0001
mapped as water mellon
breccia, part of Christmas
Tree porphyry
mapped as water mellon
breccia, part of Christmas
Tree porphyry
well graded GWGC
well graded GWGC
well graded GWGC
well graded
well graded GWGC
soil with large range of
particle size
andesite
soil with roots
gray to green
fine to medium
prophylitic
oxidized
oxidized
QSP
QSP
QSP, pyrite
QSP, pyrite,
chlorite,
prophylitic
epidote, chlorite
gray to green
fine to medium
epidote, chlorite
yellow brown
yellow brown
brown
brown
brown
brown
large rocks to clay
large rocks to clay
large rocks to clay
boulders to clay
large rocks to clay
gravel with fines
QSP
QSP
QSP
QSP
QSP
prophlytic
blue black
black
light gray to white with
severe iron stainy along joints
light brown with yellow
greewish
light grey with brown
fine with phenocrysts
clay to gravel
Sand/Silty clay
less weathered
QSP Altered
sand/clayey gravel
highly altereted
gray
gray
gray
yellow brown
grren and gray
10YR 6/8
brown to dark brown gray
brown
brown
sand
sand
sand
sand with pebble
coarse sand to gravel
2 inches to sand or fine
GPGC cobbles to fines
cobbles to fines
angular
prophyitic
PIT-VTM-0002
QPS-AAF-0019
QPS-AAF-0020
QPS-AAF-0022
QPS-SAN-0001
QPS-VTM-0001
ROC-KMD-0001
ROC-KMD-0002
ROC-VTM-0032
SCS-LFG-0004
SCS-LFG-0005
SCS-LFG-0006
SCS-LFG-0007
SCS-LFG-0008
SGS-KXB-0002
SGS-KXB-0004
SGS-KXB-0006
SGS-KXB-0013
SGS-KXB-0033
SGS-LFG-0001
SPR-AAF-0001
SPR-AAF-0003
SPR-SAN-0001
prophylitic
QSP
QSP
QSP
prophylitic
Block size (50mm) indicates
degree of weathering
rock with severe iron stainy along joints
matrix supported
well graded
139
1-5 mm phenocrysts
fine grained
propyllitic
prop
prop
Sample
identification
number
SPR-VTM-0005
SPR-VTM-0008
SPR-VTM-0010
SPR-VTM-0011
SPR-VTM-0014
SPR-VTM-0017
SPR-VTM-0019
SPR-VTM-0021
SSSAAF-0001
SSS-AAF-0004
SSS-AAF-0005
SSS-AAF-0007
SSS-AAF-0009
SSS-AAF-0011
SSS-AAF-0012
SSS-EHP-0001
SSS-EHP-0002
SSS-EHP-0003
SSS-EHP-0006
SSS-EHP-0011
SSS-EHP-0012
SSS-EHP-0014
SSS-EHP-0015
SSS-EHP-0016
SSS-EHP-0017
SSS-EHP-0019
SSS-EHP-0020
SSS-EHP-0021
SSS-EHP-0022
SSS-EHP-0023
SSS-EHP-0025
SSS-EHP-0029
SSS-EHP-0030
SSS-EHP-0031
SSS-EHP-0032
SSS-EHP0033
SSS-EHP-0034
SSS-EHP-0036
SSS-VEV-0001
Field description
Color
Grain size
Alteration
rocky soil
loose rocky soilwith grass
roots
loose rocky soil with grass
roots
loose rocky soil with grass
roots
weathered rocky soil
weathered rocky soil
rocky clayey soil
rocky clayey soil
rocky
dark gray
dark gray
gravel with fines, cobbles
gravel with fines, cobbles
dark gray
gravel with fines, cobbles
dark gray
gravel with fines, cobbles
gray
dark gray
gray with brown
gray with brown
light brown
light brown
orange brown
orange brown
gray with some brown
brown
gray with some brown
light gray
light gray
gray
gray
gray
gray
gray
gray
orange brown
orange brown
orange brown
yellow gray
yellow gray
yellow gray
light gray
gray
light gray
gray
gray
gray
gray to orange gray
orange gray
gray
dark orange to brown
clayey gravel with cobbles
clayey gravel with cobbles
clayey gravel with cobbles
clayey gravel with cobbles
cobbles with fines
cobbles with fines
cobbles with fines
cobbles with fines
cobbles with fines
cobbles with fines
cobbles with fines
gravel with fines
gravel with fines
gravel with fines
gravel with fines
gravel with fines
gravel with fines
gravel with fines
gravel with fines
sandy gravel
sandy gravel
gravel with fines
gravel with fines
gravel with fines
gravel with fines
gravel with fines
gravel with fines
cobbles with gravel
cobbles with gravel
cobbles with gravel
cobbles with gravel
gravel with fines
gravel with a lot of fines
sandy gravel
argillic
argillic, calcite,
chlorite
argillic, calcite,
chlorite
argillic, calcite,
chlorite
QSP
QSP
QSP
QSP
QSP
QSP
QSP
QSP
QSP
QSP
QSP
brown gray
gravel with fines, cobbles
brown layer of in situ block
SSS-VTM-0010
ferricrete boulder, probably
from alteration scar befor
covering with rock pile
rocky soil
SSS-VTM-0012
loose rock pile material
brown
gravel with fines, cobbles
SSS-VTM-0600
rocky soil
brown gray
gravel with fines, cobbles
SSW-AAF-0001
SSW-AAF-0002
SSW-AAF-0005
SSW-AAF-0007
well graded soil
select clay lense
well graded
well graded
brown
white gray
brown
brown
gravey sand
clayey gravel
cobbles to clay
cobbles to clay
140
yellow coatings
yellow coating
yellow coating
yellow coating
yellow coating
ferricrete
argillic, some
chlorite
argillic, some
chlorite
argillic, some
chlorite
QSP
QSP
QSP
QSP
Sample
identification
number
SSW-SAN-0001
SSW-SAN-0007
SSW-VTM-0001
SSW-VTM-0002
SSW-VTM-0016
SSW-VTM-0019
SSW-VTM-0022
SSW-VTM-0023
SSW-VTM-0026
SSW-VTM-0028
SSW-VTM-0030
SWH-GJG-0008
SWH-GJG-0009
SWH-GJG-0012
SWH-GJG-0015
Field description
Color
Grain size
Alteration
well graded
light brown
cobbles to clay
QSP
rocky soii with clay lenses
brown
gravel with fines
rocky soii with clay lenses
brown
gravel with fines
dark gray with some yellow
dark olive gray to brown with
some yellow orange
gray with some yellow orange
cobbles to clay
cobbles to clay
QSP acid
generating
QSP acid
generating
QSP
QSP
cobbles to clay
QSP
gray with some yellow orange
cobbles to clay
QSP
yellow orange
yellow orange
yellow brown
gray
brown
cobbles to clay
cobbles to clay
cobbles to clay
QSP
QSP
QSP
QSP
QSP
QSP
layered, dipping 15 degrees
on north wall
layered, dipping 15 degrees
on north wall
layered, dipping 15 degrees
on north wall
bedrock
weathered bedrock
soil to weathered bedrock
brown to green gray
rock, little fines
cobbles to sands
cobbles with fines
Table B4: Summary of lithology and hydrothermal alteration for samples tested for slake durability and
point load.
Sample
rhyolite (Amalia Tuff) %
Andesite %
GHN-EHP-0007
Intrusive aplite %
QSP %
Propylitic %
Argillic %
100
GHN-JRM-0001
100
90
2
75
30
5
10
90
25
20
0
100
25
12
0
100
25
20
GHN-KMD-0013
25
GHN-KMD-0014
GHN-KMD-0015
GHN-KMD-0016
GHN-KMD-0017
17
83
50
2
GHN-KMD-0018
35
65
20
8
GHN-KMD-0019
0
100
10
25
GHN-KMD-0026
60
40
40
1
GHN-KMD-0027
50
50
30
7
GHN-KMD-0051
60
40
25
15
50
50
30
5
GHN-KMD-0055
20
80
50
GHN-KMD-0056
70
30
30
7
100
15
40
3
3
20
3
GHN-KMD-0052
GHN-KMD-0053
GHN-KMD-0054
GHN-KMD-0057
GHN-KMD-0065
60
40
GHN-KMD-0071
40
30
30
20
5
25
10
2
GHN-KMD-0072
GHN-KMD-0073
10
90
25
12
GHN-KMD-0074
20
80
35
10
141
2
Sample
GHN-KMD-0079
rhyolite (Amalia Tuff) %
Andesite %
Intrusive aplite %
QSP %
Propylitic %
Argillic %
20
80
50
7
3
GHN-KMD-0081
50
50
55
10
3
GHN-KMD-0082
95
5
30
15
GHN-KMD-0088
100
60
10
GHN-KMD-0096
100
0
70
GHN-KMD-0080
GHN-KMD-0097
GHN-LFG-0085
60
2
90
10
25
2
4
0
100
25
12
3
GHN-LFG-0090
0
100
25
8
3
GHN-LFG-0091
100
0
70
GHN-RDL-0002
100
GHN-RDL-0003
100
GHN-VTM-0263
12
88
3
55
GHN-VTM-0450
10
80
10
15
8
5
GHN-VTM-0453
0
75
25
55
15
4
GHN-LFG-0086
GHN-LFG-0088
GHN-LFG-0089
GHN-VTM-0456
GHN-VTM-0508
100
0
100
GHN-VTM-0554
100
GHN-VTM-0599
100
40
75
75
25
GHN-VTM-0614
0
100
MIN-GFA-0001
1
MIN-GFA-0003
100
MIN-GFA-0005
99
MIN-GFA-0009
100
MIN-SAN-0002
5
MIN-VTM-0003
10
75
GHN-VTM-0603
GHN-VTM-0606
6
99
40
20
70
25
65
5
85
1
5
2
70
10
70
95
30
3
100
PIT-LFG-0013
100
PIT-RDL-0002
100
PIT-VCV-0001
100
25
PIT-VCV-0002
100
80
PIT-VCV-0003
100
40
PIT-VCV-0004
100
60
PIT-VCV-0005
100
20
PIT-VCV-0006
100
1
5
25
PIT-VCV-0007
100
40
5
PIT-VCV-0008
100
10
20
PIT-VCV-0009
100
20
15
142
Sample
rhyolite (Amalia Tuff) %
Andesite %
Intrusive aplite %
PIT-VCV-0010
PIT-VCV-0011
QSP %
Propylitic %
100
50
100
60
PIT-VCV-0012
100
60
PIT-VCV-0013
100
65
PIT-VCV-0014
100
100
65
PIT-VCV-0016
100
25
100
35
100
PIT-VCV-0018
100
70
PIT-VCV-0020
100
90
PIT-VCV-0021
100
85
PIT-VCV-0022
100
50
PIT-VCV-0023
100
60
PIT-VCV-0024
100
60
PIT-VCV-0025
100
75
PIT-VCV-0026
100
70
100
PIT-VCV-0028
90
100
60
PIT-VCV-0029
100
45
PIT-VCV-0030
100
70
PIT-VTM-0001
100
PIT-VTM-0002
100
QPS-AAF-0001
80
90
QPS-AAF-0003
80
20
QPS-AAF-0005
80
20
QPS-AAF-0009
80
20
QPS-SAN-0002
95
ROC-KMD-0001
100
ROC-KMD-0002
100
3
30
PIT-VCV-0019
PIT-VCV-0027
10
50
PIT-VCV-0015
PIT-VCV-0017
Argillic %
5
30
7
ROC-VTM-0032
0
100
8
2
SCS-LFG-0004
0
0
100
32
68
SCS-LFG-0005
0
0
100
30
20
SCS-LFG-0006
0
0
100
45
55
SCS-LFG-0007
100
SCS-LFG-0008
100
SPR-SAN-0002
100
SPR-VTM-0005
100
SPR-VTM-0008
100
SPR-VTM-0010
100
SPR-VTM-0017
100
SSS-AAF-0004
100
143
35
7
Sample
rhyolite (Amalia Tuff) %
Andesite %
SSS-AAF-0005
Intrusive aplite %
QSP %
Propylitic %
Argillic %
100
SSS-AAF-0009
100
SSS-EHP-0014
100
SSS-EHP-0015
100
SSS-EHP-0019
100
SSS-EHP-0020
100
SSS-EHP-0023
100
SSS-EHP-0025
100
SSS-VTM-0600
80
20
SSW-AAF-0001
80
20
SSW-AAF-0002
80
20
SSW-AAF-0005
SSW-AAF-0007
SSW-AAF-0009
SSW-SAN-0002
100
SSW-SAN-0006
95
3
2
25
5
50
1
Table B5: Mineralogy in weight percent for samples tested for slake durability and point load, as
determined by modified ModAn (McLemore et al., 2009).
Sample
Quartz
K-feldspar
Plagioclase
Epidote
0.9
GHN-EHP-0001
35
24
13
GHN-EHP-0002
47
21
1
Calcite
Pyrite
Fe Oxide
Gypsum
0.6
1
2
0.1
0.1
0.9
0.6
Molybdenite
Biotite
GHN-JRM-0001
35
7
15
0.01
0.4
3
GHN-KMD0013
GHN-KMD0014
GHN-KMD0015
GHN-KMD0016
GHN-KMD0017
GHN-KMD0018
GHN-KMD0019
GHN-KMD0026
GHN-KMD0027
GHN-KMD0048
GHN-KMD0050
GHN-KMD0051
GHN-KMD0052
29
20
16
0.2
0.4
0.1
6
1
0.01
0.01
19
37
19
9
1.4
0.2
1
0.04
0.01
0.01
30
20
15
0.1
1.4
0.1
5
0.7
24
22
22
12
0.01
0.2
0.5
1
32
3
21
0.1
3
0.6
1.5
39
25
4
0.4
0.4
1.7
1.2
24
18
24
7
2
0.1
2
0.24
36
29
15
0.01
0.3
0.1
4
0.6
35
26
11
0.01
0.7
0.01
5
0.6
25
24
24
10
0.4
0.1
2
25
23
22
8
0.9
0.1
2
27
25
19
4
1.8
0.2
3
2
29
20
16
3
2.5
2
2
0.4
144
1.2
0.01
Sample
Quartz
K-feldspar
Plagioclase
Epidote
Calcite
Pyrite
Fe Oxide
Gypsum
GHN-KMD0053
GHN-KMD0054
GHN-KMD0055
GHN-KMD0056
GHN-KMD0057
GHN-KMD0062
GHN-KMD0063
GHN-KMD0064
GHN-KMD0065
GHN-KMD0071
GHN-KMD0072
GHN-KMD0073
GHN-KMD0074
GHN-KMD0077
GHN-KMD0078
GHN-KMD0079
GHN-KMD0080
GHN-KMD0081
GHN-KMD0082
GHN-KMD0088
GHN-KMD0092
GHN-KMD0095
GHN-KMD0096
GHN-KMD0097
GHN-KMD0100
GHN-LFG-0085
38
27
8
1
0.7
0.1
3
0.6
28
24
17
5
0.5
0.5
3
1
48
14
5
0.5
3
0.7
1
30
24
20
3
0.5
0.2
3
0.41
26
17
25
7
1
0.2
2
35
21
10
1
0.01
5
0.1
33
16
13
0.1
0.2
1
4
0
33
27
16
2
0.1
0.3
4
29
22
17
3
0.4
0.1
5
0.3
30
23
20
2
0.4
0.8
2
0.8
27
24
20
6
1
0.1
3
25
22
21
5
1
0.3
2
0.4
28
21
18
5
0.4
0.2
3
0.4
32
26
19
2
0.4
0.1
3.5
35
26
18
0.4
0.4
3
31
23
17
2
0.5
0.3
4
24
23
23
10
0.4
0.1
2
33
21
18
1
0.5
0.6
3
0.7
26
23
23
5
1
0.3
2
1.2
29
23
19
0.01
0.2
0.9
3
1.8
30
20
17
0.3
0.7
3
48
25
0
0.3
0.7
0.2
46
19
2
0.01
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.81
39
25
2
0.01
0.3
1
0.4
0
34
25
11
0.5
0.01
4
27
22
17
7
0.4
0.1
4
0.2
GHN-LFG-0086
26
22
16
7
0.3
2
2
1.7
GHN-LFG-0088
24
24
22
8
2
0.1
2
0.28
GHN-LFG-0090
23
21
23
3
GHN-LFG-0091
55
6
4
1.2
1
4
1.5
0.001
1
1
6
0.02
GHN-SAW0200
GHN-SAW0201
0.23
0.21
145
Biotite
0.01
0.8
GHN-LFG-0089
GHN-RDL-0002
Molybdenite
0.01
0.01
Sample
Quartz
K-feldspar
Plagioclase
GHN-VTM0263
GHN-VTM0293
GHN-VTM0450
GHN-VTM0453
GHN-VTM0456
GHN-VTM0508
GHN-VTM0599
GHN-VTM0603
GHN-VTM0606
GHN-VTM0607
GHN-VTM0614
GHR-VWL0004
HAS-GJG-0006
45
14
42
HAS-GJG-0007
Calcite
Pyrite
Fe Oxide
Gypsum
0.6
0.5
4
0.3
0.7
14
4
1
3
0.7
2
26
20
22
5
0.6
0.4
4
25
20
17
1
1
2
4
2
1
44
13
11
2
1
3
4.8
0.001
30
13
3
0.1
5
0.4
4
0.2
33
2
7
0
2
0.01
3
0.4
49
12
8
0
0.001
0.001
1
1
39
13
9
0.01
0.6
0.4
3
0.6
31
1
1
3
0.3
0.1
6
28
14
0.1
12
21
21
4
4
2
8
24
9
5
5
3
12
HAS-GJG-0008
28
6
3
0.4
HAS-GJG-0009
25
HAS-GJG-0010
45
MID-AAF-0001
32
13
Epidote
14
5
1
5
0.1
0.8
4
3
MID-AAF-0002
35
10
9
MID-VTM-0002
49
19
2
0.2
0.6
4
3
0.01
0.2
2
0.01
0.7
MIN-AAF-0001
47
15
0.01
0.1
0.01
2
0.1
MIN-AAF-0004
45
22
MIN-AAF-0010
44
12
0.1
0.1
0.01
2
0.1
0.6
1
0.1
0.7
0.1
MIN-AAF-0013
48
22
0.3
0.01
1
0.08
MIN-GFA-0001
45
18
MIN-GFA-0003
43
16
0.6
0.2
0.1
5
0.5
MIN-GFA-0005
46
20
MIN-GFA-0009
48
16
0.7
0.1
0.1
2
0.1
MIN-SAN-0002
45
13
2
0.1
0.01
1
0.2
PIT-LFG-0013
39
0.6
17
0.3
0.9
PIT-RDL-0002
46
40
PIT-VCV-0001
25
30
PIT-VCV-0002
37
33
PIT-VCV-0003
23
17
PIT-VCV-0004
59
16
PIT-VCV-0005
58
12
PIT-VCV-0006
75
PIT-VCV-0007
30
0.1
15
0.01
29
35
2
0.2
2
0.01
3
0.3
2
0.04
0.001
0.01
0.5
1
7
0.01
0.01
0.2
2
5
0.5
7
0.1
0.01
1
0.1
0.01
1
0
1
1E04
4
0.8
0.3
7
146
1
0
15
1
0.1
Biotite
0.01
0.2
0.04
Molybdenite
0.2
0.3
0.01
Sample
PIT-VCV-0008
Quartz
K-feldspar
Plagioclase
Epidote
Calcite
Pyrite
41
17
2
0.9
5.3
3.7
Fe Oxide
Gypsum
Molybdenite
0
Biotite
2
PIT-VCV-0009
31
17
14
1.5
2.1
5.6
PIT-VCV-0010
28
32
19
0.01
2
3
0.01
0.2
0
3
PIT-VCV-0011
30
35
9
2
3
0.01
0.2
5
PIT-VCV-0012
48
18
1
0.01
0.8
3
1
0.1
PIT-VCV-0013
55
10
0.2
0.01
3
2
0.4
0.2
PIT-VCV-0014
47
19
0.2
0.01
2
2
0.7
0.2
PIT-VCV-0015
41
37
15
0.01
0.5
0.6
0.01
0.1
1
PIT-VCV-0016
29
38
14
0.01
2
0.2
0.1
1
PIT-VCV-0017
33
38
7
0.01
1
1E04
0.9
0.1
0.2
2
PIT-VCV-0018
36
38
11
0.01
2
1
0.01
0.1
PIT-VCV-0019
30
4
0.01
0.1
0.9
1
4
PIT-VCV-0020
24
4
5
0.5
2
1
0.5
17
PIT-VCV-0021
23
16
15
0.01
0.05
3
0.01
7
PIT-VCV-0022
23
18
24
0.01
0.1
7
0.01
7
PIT-VCV-0023
26
14
18
0.01
0.1
9
0.01
9
PIT-VCV-0024
30
21
3
0.01
1
2
0.01
0.6
PIT-VCV-0025
40
18
0.7
0.01
0.8
6
0.01
0.3
PIT-VCV-0026
37
19
1
0.01
0.3
7
0.01
0.4
PIT-VCV-0027
28
28
6
0.01
0.7
5
0.4
0.2
PIT-VCV-0028
38
35
23
0.01
1
4
0.1
0.2
PIT-VCV-0029
55
PIT-VTM-0001
32
6
30
15
0.5
0.1
0.1
6
4
PIT-VTM-0002
23
27
24
11
0.1
0.2
2
QPS-AAF-0001
38
12
13
0.01
0.7
0.2
2
0.9
QPS-AAF-0003
34
10
14
0.1
0.1
3
2
QPS-AAF-0005
34
6
14
0.01
3
2
QPS-AAF-0009
35
17
6
3
QPS-SAN-0002
42
4
10
QPS-VTM-0001
33
12
16
ROC-KMD0002
ROC-VTM-0032
16
20
19
18
SCS-LFG-0004
17
0.09
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.01
0.03
0
3
0.01
0.01
1
0.3
3
0.9
0.8
1
0.4
0.2
4
1
36
0.2
6
0.8
0
24
1
6
0.02
1
0.001
2
8
13
0.3
2.3
0.1
0.5
0.1
1
0.6
0.5
2
0.6
0.001
SCS-LFG-0005
34
6
5
SCS-LFG-0006
30
18
21
SPR-AAF-0001
26
17
24
2
0.1
5
SPR-AAF-0003
25
18
22
2
0.4
0.5
4
1
SPR-SAN-0002
25
21
18
2
0.5
0.3
4
2
SPR-VTM-0012
56
11
0.8
0.01
0.1
0.3
0.7
0.04
SPR-VTM-0017
49
18
0.1
0.9
0.3
0.02
SPR-VTM-0021
51
22
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.02
147
7
6
Sample
Quartz
K-feldspar
Plagioclase
SSS-AAF-0001
29
14
SSS-AAF-0005
38
SSS-AAF-0009
47
SSS-VTM-0600
36
SSW-AAF-0001
SSW-AAF-0005
SSW-AAF-0007
Calcite
Pyrite
Fe Oxide
Gypsum
7
0.2
0.4
6
3
4
5
0.01
0.4
4
1.21
15
1
0.4
0.5
1
0
17
13
0.2
0.2
4
0
25
21
20
0.1
0.4
6
0.51
33
11
18
0.2
0.2
4
0
34
16
10
0.1
1
2
2
SSW-AAF-0009
30
16
16
5
0.3
0.8
1
0
0.01
SSW-SAN-0002
32
8
18
0.01
0.1
0.3
2
2
0.01
SSW-SAN-0006
37
22
2
3
0.3
0.1
0.6
1
SSW-VTM-0001
49
3
6
0.3
0.4
4
2
SSW-VTM-0030
31
8
13
7
0.6
1
1
3.1
SWH-GJG-0008
30
24
22
SWH-GJG-0009
23
13
20
1
SWH-GJG-0012
30
13
28
0.7
SWH-GJG-0015
33
16
Sample
GHN-EHP0001
GHN-EHP0002
GHN-JRM0001
GHN-KMD0013
GHN-KMD0014
GHN-KMD0015
GHN-KMD0016
GHN-KMD0017
GHN-KMD0018
GHN-KMD0019
GHN-KMD0026
GHN-KMD0027
GHN-KMD0028
GHN-KMD0048
GHN-KMD0050
GHN-KMD0051
GHN-KMD0052
GHN-KMD0053
Fluori
te
0.01
0.01
Magnet
ite
Epidote
0
0.6
Biotite
7
12
12
4
4
Apati
te
0.5
Kaoloni
te
1
Chlori
te
3
Illit
e
17
Smecti
te
1
Rutil
e
0.4
Zirco
n
0.04
0.1
1
2
23
1
2
0.2
0.06
0.2
1
3
27
2
4
0.4
0.03
0.6
1
3
20
2
0.2
0.01
0.3
0.03
0.7
1
7
1
2
0.2
0.01
0.8
0.03
0.6
2
5
16
3
0.14
0.01
0.5
0.03
0.7
1
7
4
5
0
0.7
0.03
0.4
1
4
25
3
0.06
4
0.6
0.03
0.2
1
3
19
3
0.06
1.4
0.3
0.04
0.6
1
8
9
3
0
0.7
0.03
0.3
1
2
10
2
0
0.1
0.04
0.5
2
2
15
2
0.3
0.2
0.04
0.8
1
7
4
1
0.7
0.04
0.8
1
7
8
2
0.7
0.03
0.4
2
4
8
4
0
0.5
0.04
0.7
1
6
16
1
0
0.5
0.03
0.1
2
2
15
2
0.5
0.2
0.06
148
Molybdenite
Copiapi
te
Jarosi
te
0
Sphaler
ite
0.01
0.01
Sample
GHN-KMD0054
GHN-KMD0055
GHN-KMD0056
GHN-KMD0057
GHN-KMD0062
GHN-KMD0063
GHN-KMD0064
GHN-KMD0065
GHN-KMD0071
GHN-KMD0072
GHN-KMD0073
GHN-KMD0074
GHN-KMD0077
GHN-KMD0078
GHN-KMD0079
GHN-KMD0080
GHN-KMD0081
GHN-KMD0082
GHN-KMD0088
GHN-KMD0092
GHN-KMD0095
GHN-KMD0096
GHN-KMD0097
GHN-KMD0100
GHN-LFG0018
GHN-LFG0020
GHN-LFG0037
GHN-LFG0041
GHN-LFG0085
GHN-LFG0086
GHN-LFG0088
GHN-LFG0089
Fluori
te
0.01
Magnet
ite
0.03
0.01
0.2
Apati
te
0.8
Kaoloni
te
1
Chlori
te
6
Illit
e
12
Smecti
te
1
0.2
1
2
28
1
0.4
1
4
10
4
0.8
1
7
11
2
0.2
1
3
20
2
0.3
2
5
20
2
0.4
1
2
11
3
0.5
2
5
14
2
0.3
2
3
13
2
0.7
1
6
8
3
0.5
4
7
8
4
0
0.5
0.03
0.5
2
6
12
2
0
0.6
0.03
0.4
1
2
11
2
0.2
0.04
0.4
2
3
10
2
0.3
0.04
0.4
1
4
13
3
0.4
0.04
0.7
3
7
4
3
0.7
0.04
0.5
1
3
14
3
0
0.3
0.04
0.6
1
7
8
1
0
0.6
0.03
0.2
2
4
14
2
0.1
0.4
0.03
0.4
1
4
19
3
0.4
0.03
0.01
2
1
20
2
1
0.1
0.06
0.1
2
2
23
1
2.5
0.2
0.06
0.2
1
3
23
1
2
0.4
0.04
0.4
3
4
15
2
0.3
0.04
1
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
1
2
2
4
1
1
3
4
0.6
1
7
13
1
0
0.6
0.7
1
6
13
1
0
0.6
0.7
1
8
7
1
0
0.7
149
Copiapi
te
Jarosi
te
0.5
Sphaler
ite
Rutil
e
0.6
Zirco
n
0.03
1
0.3
0.04
0
0.5
0.04
0.6
0.03
1
0.3
0.04
1.6
0.5
0.03
0.2
0.04
0
0.4
0.04
0
0.4
0.03
0.5
0.01
0.03
Sample
GHN-LFG0090
GHN-LFG0091
GHN-RDL0002
GHN-SAW0003
GHN-SAW0004
GHN-SAW0005
GHN-SAW0200
GHN-SAW0201
GHN-VTM0263
GHN-VTM0293
GHN-VTM0450
GHN-VTM0453
GHN-VTM0508
GHN-VTM0554
GHN-VTM0598
GHN-VTM0599
GHN-VTM0603
GHN-VTM0606
GHN-VTM0607
GHN-VTM0614
GHR-VWL0004
HAS-GJG0006
HAS-GJG0007
HAS-GJG0008
HAS-GJG0009
HAS-GJG0010
HAS-GJG0014
MID-AAF0001
MID-AAF0002
MID-VTM0002
MIN-AAF0001
MIN-AAF0004
Fluori
te
Magnet
ite
Apati
te
0.7
Kaoloni
te
1
Chlori
te
7
Illit
e
11
0.01
17
3
1
3
1
0
7
1
1
3
3
1
3
4
1
1
2
4
1
2
0
3
2
0.3
2
2
29
1
0.3
0
3
28
1
0.6
1
7
10
2
0.4
1
7
17
1
0
1
0
14
1
0
1
3
3
2
1
1
5
1
0.5
1
5
36
1
0.01
1
5
41
1
0.01
Copiapi
te
Jarosi
te
0
Sphaler
ite
Rutil
e
0.6
Zirco
n
0.03
1
0.4
0.04
1
0.4
0.04
0.6
0.07
0.6
0.03
0
0.4
0.03
3
0.5
0.03
0
2
10
0
0.2
1
3
27
2
1
0.4
0.04
0.2
1
3
46
1
6
0.7
0.03
0.6
1
4
40
1
5
12
14
10
0
0
9
24
8
0
0
16
32
0
0
0
0
69
0
0
0
6
37
5
0
0.3
2
3
22
3
0
0.4
0.03
0.2
0
3
28
3
1
0.3
0.03
0.1
0.9
0.9
17
6
2
0.2
0.06
0.1
2
2
29
1
2
0.3
0.04
0.1
1
0
16
3
2
0.2
0.04
150
Smecti
te
2
0.2
Sample
MIN-AAF0006
MIN-AAF0010
MIN-AAF0012
MIN-AAF0013
MIN-AAF0015
MIN-GFA0001
MIN-GFA0003
MIN-GFA0005
MIN-GFA0009
MIN-SAN0002
PIT-LFG0013
PIT-RDL0002
PIT-VCV0001
PIT-VCV0002
PIT-VCV0003
PIT-VCV0004
PIT-VCV0005
PIT-VCV0006
PIT-VCV0007
PIT-VCV0008
PIT-VCV0009
PIT-VCV0010
PIT-VCV0011
PIT-VCV0012
PIT-VCV0013
PIT-VCV0014
PIT-VCV0015
PIT-VCV0016
PIT-VCV0017
PIT-VCV0018
PIT-VCV0019
PIT-VCV0020
Fluori
te
Magnet
ite
Apati
te
Kaoloni
te
Chlori
te
Illit
e
Smecti
te
0.1
1
2
33
1
0.01
1
0
20
0.01
0.1
2
2
0.01
0.6
2
0.01
0.1
0.02
0.002
Rutil
e
Zirco
n
3
0.5
0.03
6
1
0.3
0.06
28
1
1
0.5
0.04
3
25
1
0.01
0.3
0.03
0
1
28
2
0
0.3
0.05
0.1
2
1
27
1
1
0.3
0.04
0.2
3
2
28
1
3
0.4
0.04
0.1
2
3
30
1
5.6
0.6
0.03
0.01
1
0.6
10
1
0.1
0.06
0.6
0
2
18
0
0
0.7
0.03
0.3
0
2
20
0
0
0.4
0.06
0.7
0.8
3
18
0.8
0
0.8
0.03
0.01
1
1
21
1
0.06
0.1
0.06
0.01
1
1
24
1
1
0.1
0.06
Jarosi
te
Sphaler
ite
0.04
0.0001
0.5
0.01
0.5
1
2
22
1
0.01
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.3
25
0.9
0.2
0.5
1
0.5
0.9
3
22
0.9
0.06
0.6
0.04
0.01
0.4
0.9
3
10
0.9
0
0.5
0.04
0
0.6
1
3
14
1
0
0.5
0.04
0.01
0.2
1
2
24
0.9
0
0.3
0.03
0.0001
0.2
0
1
28
0
0
0.3
0.03
1
0.01
1
2
26
1
0
0.3
0.03
0.0001
0.1
1
0.6
3
1
0
0.2
0.01
0.01
0.7
1
3
10
1
0
0.8
0.07
0.4
1
2
15
1
0
0.5
0.04
0.4
1
1
9
1
0
0.3
0.03
0.4
1
0.4
55
1
3
0.7
0.03
0.8
1
0.8
41
1
0
0.8
0.03
0.01
151
Copiapi
te
Sample
PIT-VCV0021
PIT-VCV0022
PIT-VCV0023
PIT-VCV0024
PIT-VCV0025
PIT-VCV0026
PIT-VCV0027
PIT-VCV0028
PIT-VCV0029
PIT-VCV0030
PIT-VTM0001
PIT-VTM0002
QPS-AAF0001
QPS-AAF0003
QPS-AAF0005
QPS-AAF0009
QPS-SAN0002
QPS-VTM0001
ROC-KMD0001
ROC-KMD0002
ROC-VTM0032
SCS-LFG0004
SCS-LFG0005
SCS-LFG0006
SCS-LFG0007
SCS-LFG0008
SPR-AAF0001
SPR-AAF0003
SPR-SAN0002
SPR-VTM0012
SPR-VTM0014
SPR-VTM0017
Fluori
te
Magnet
ite
Apati
te
0.7
Kaoloni
te
1
Chlori
te
12
Illit
e
18
Smecti
te
1
6
1
9
8
1
7
1
4
17
2
1
6
0.4
1
0.4
Rutil
e
0.9
Zirco
n
0.3
0.9
0.03
1
1
1
0.02
32
1
0
0.7
0.03
2
29
1
0
0.5
0.04
1
3
29
1
0
0.5
0.04
0.5
1
4
25
1
0
0.6
0.03
0.4
1
0.4
0.1
1
0
0.2
0.01
0.6
Jarosi
te
3
Sphaler
ite
0
0
0.5
1
6
18
1
0.6
0.03
0.6
1
6
4
1
0.5
0.03
0.4
0
3
27
0
2
0.5
0.03
0.4
1
4
28
1
2
0.5
0.03
0.4
3
4
29
0.9
3
0.5
0.03
0.7
1
3
28
1
0
0.6
0.03
0.2
1
3
31
3
4
0.4
0.04
0.5
1
3
25
3
0.3
0.4
0.03
1
2
4
2
0.6
1
5
10
3
0.7
0.8
0.03
2
1
0.01
11
16
0
0.4
5
5
26
24
0
0.3
1
6
35
3
3
0.6
0.03
0.3
1
5
19
1
1
0.6
0.03
0
2
4
3
0
1
7
1
0.7
1
10
9
3
0.01
0.7
0.03
0.8
1
9
12
3
0
0.7
0.03
0.9
1
8
14
3
0.03
0.6
0.01
2
0
26
2
0.6
0.1
0.06
0.02
2
0
24
5
1
0.3
0.04
152
Copiapi
te
Sample
SPR-VTM0021
SSS-AAF0001
SSS-AAF0004
SSS-AAF0005
SSS-AAF0007
SSS-AAF0009
SSS-EHP0023
SSS-VEV0001
SSS-VTM0600
SSW-AAF0001
SSW-AAF0005
SSW-AAF0007
SSW-AAF0009
SSW-SAN0002
SSW-SAN0006
SSW-VTM0001
SSW-VTM0030
SWH-GJG0008
SWH-GJG0009
SWH-GJG0012
SWH-GJG0015
Fluori
te
Magnet
ite
Apati
te
Kaoloni
te
2
Chlori
te
0
Illit
e
20
Smecti
te
4
0.4
3
6
27
3
0.3
1
5
36
0.3
1
0
1
0.01
Copiapi
te
Jarosi
te
0
Sphaler
ite
Rutil
e
0.2
Zirco
n
0.06
0.6
0.4
0.03
2
3
0.5
0.04
23
7
2
0.3
0.04
1
3
3
1
2
3
2
0.7
7
2
18
1
0.6
0.4
0.04
0.9
1
5
14
5
0.5
0.3
1
0.4
25
3
3
0.6
0.03
0.3
1
4
23
4
2
0.4
0.03
0.5
2
5
16
2
2
0.6
0.03
0.3
1
5
23
4
4
0.5
0.03
0.3
1
3
23
1
5
0.4
0.04
0.1
1
2
29
2
4
0.4
0.04
0.7
1
5
23
2
3.5
0.6
0.03
3
4
5
4
0
3
0
10
8
0
0
0.6
16
7
0
7
0
27
14
Table B6: Chemical analyses in weight percent for samples tested for slake durability and point load.
Sample
SiO
2
TiO
2
Al2O
3
Fe2O3
T
Mn
O
Mg
O
CaO
Na2
O
K2
O
P2O
5
S
SO
4
C
LOI
Total
GHN-EHP0001
67.1
4
0.47
13.71
3.62
0.11
1.23
0.81
2.22
3.9
7
0.19
0.
6
0.0
3
0.0
8
4.55
98.7
GHN-EHP0002
74.4
5
0.25
12.27
2.046
0.06
1
0.62
0.32
0.79
4.4
6
0.07
1
0.
1
0.3
0.0
8
3.24
99.04
GHN-EHP0003
65.0
3
0.44
3
12.61
4.74
0.04
1
0.78
0.33
1.26
3.9
7
0.11
7
0.
6
0.3
0.0
8
7.88
98.15
GHN-EHP0004
63.2
9
0.55
5
13.58
3.41
0.37
1.04
0.76
0.95
3.5
5
0.27
7
9.9
GHN-EHP0007
58.1
5
0.62
4
17.43
6.237
0.16
6
2.31
0.77
1.3
3.6
8
0.27
1
7.13
153
Sample
SiO
2
TiO
2
Al2O
3
Fe2O3
T
Mn
O
Mg
O
CaO
Na2
O
K2
O
P2O
5
S
SO
4
C
LOI
Total
GHN-HRS0096
65.7
7
0.64
14.87
2.827
0.03
3
0.81
0.09
3.18
3.8
4
0.11
1
0
0.9
9
0.0
8
5.43
98.7
GHN-JRM0001
61.6
4
0.53
13.65
5.24
0.08
1.28
0.98
1.87
3.9
1
0.19
2
1.1
2
0.0
7
8.81
101.3
8
GHN-JRM0037
75.7
2
0.15
11.6
1.93
0.02
8
0.25
0.25
2
1.72
6
5.6
8
0.03
0.
2
0.2
4
0.0
5
2.48
100.3
4
GHN-JRM0038
68.8
0.42
13.43
4.573
0.05
6
0.72
0.10
8
0.39
8
4.2
0.16
5
1.
1
0.5
4
0.0
6
5.63
100.2
2
GHN-JRM0039
66.6
4
0.6
15.1
2.58
0.02
0.5
0.08
0.15
3.6
5
0.23
0.
4
0.5
8
0.0
8
6.28
96.92
GHN-JRM0040
70.2
6
0.5
14.75
3.212
0.01
1
0.37
0.08
0.1
3.6
9
0.19
2.
1
0.4
7
0.0
5
5.85
101.6
1
GHN-JRM0047
66.8
4
0.55
14.69
4.706
0.07
8
0.99
0.52
0.86
3.7
7
0.25
0.
7
0.5
2
0.0
7
5.99
100.5
1
GHN-KMD0013
63.6
8
0.6
14.59
6.23
0.07
1.46
1.17
2.42
3.6
8
0.23
0.
1
0.2
3
0.0
5
4.81
99.28
GHN-KMD0014
61.0
5
0.82
14.79
5.1
0.22
2.74
3.12
3.31
4.6
5
0.29
0
0.0
1
0.1
7
2.34
98.62
GHN-KMD0015
63.8
3
0.7
14.36
5.72
0.37
2.05
1.38
2.49
4.0
7
0.25
0.
1
0.1
7
0.1
6
3.7
99.3
GHN-KMD0016
61.8
8
0.79
14.44
5.51
0.31
2.83
2.97
3.36
3.1
2
0.29
GHN-KMD0017
61.3
4
0.61
14.37
6.03
0.08
1.51
1.15
2.5
3.4
9
0.23
GHN-KMD0018
70.4
5
0.36
12.95
3.48
0.22
1.23
0.81
1.29
4.8
1
0.08
GHN-KMD0019
61.7
8
0.81
14.94
5.35
0.32
3.14
3.59
3.48
2.9
2
0.26
0
GHN-KMD0026
69.8
3
0.32
12.81
3.86
0.15
0.76
0.5
2.59
4.2
6
0.13
GHN-KMD0027
68.0
3
0.43
12.93
4.57
0.21
1.05
0.56
2.03
4.1
5
0.19
GHN-KMD0028
62.3
6
0.57
4
14.28
4.796
0.26
9
1.82
1.56
2.51
3.6
4
0.25
1
GHN-KMD0048
63.1
1
0.75
14.72
5.55
0.45
2.64
2.79
3.57
3.2
8
0.34
0.1
3
3.43
GHN-KMD0050
62.5
0.74
14.74
5.423
0.43
2.74
2.78
3.29
3.3
3
0.34
0.1
3.84
GHN-KMD0051
67.8
3
0.59
14.44
4.32
0.29
1.8
1.94
3.22
3.9
6
0.16
GHN-KMD-
61.8
0.6
14.16
5.34
0.37
2.23
2.32
2.48
154
3.4
0.27
3.42
1.
7
1.2
2
0.0
3
7.4
0
4.2
0.0
5
0.2
4
4.3
101.2
2
0
0.1
2
0.0
5
3.53
98.94
0
0.1
8
0.0
7
4.48
98.89
101.6
4
5.49
2.72
1
0.0
0.2
4.49
98.88
Sample
SiO
2
TiO
2
Al2O
3
Fe2O3
T
Mn
O
Mg
O
0052
2
GHN-KMD0053
70.6
2
0.33
12.82
3.73
0.3
0.91
0.53
1.78
4.5
4
0.06
GHN-KMD0054
62.7
4
0.73
14.19
5.21
0.24
2.33
2.19
2.7
3.6
4
GHN-KMD0055
71.8
6
0.27
12.19
3.49
0.06
0.63
0.76
0.38
GHN-KMD0056
68.3
4
0.59
14.53
4.31
0.22
1.64
1.21
GHN-KMD0057
62.6
7
0.71
14.99
5.192
0.34
9
2.62
GHN-KMD0062
67.0
1
0.49
13.66
5.27
0.44
2
GHN-KMD0063
64.2
7
0.62
13.64
5.91
GHN-KMD0064
68.4
0.42
13.51
GHN-KMD0065
66.8
2
0.66
GHN-KMD0071
67.8
1
GHN-KMD0072
K2
O
P2O
5
C
9
9
0.
1
0.2
0.32
0.
3
3.8
8
0.1
3.21
3.8
2.56
3.05
1.35
0.51
0.16
6
1.89
4.54
0.22
14.69
6.12
0.49
14.77
63.6
3
0.65
GHN-KMD0073
62.6
3
GHN-KMD0074
S
LOI
Total
0.0
7
3.65
99.6
0.2
3
0.0
5
4.2
99.02
2
0.4
6
0.0
6
5.04
101.1
5
0.16
0.
1
0.0
8
0.0
4
3.09
101.3
2
3.5
2
0.32
6
0.
1
0.0
1
0.1
3
3.38
99.6
1.8
4.1
8
0.2
0
0.2
4
0.1
2
4.72
100.0
1
1.25
2
3.7
9
0.22
0.
6
0.7
5
0.0
4
5.97
101.0
7
0.95
0.66
2.68
4.0
6
0.17
8
0
3.58
0.52
2.15
1.29
2.76
3.7
3
0.2
0.
1
0.0
6
0.0
3
3.59
102.6
7
3.85
0.13
1.35
1.28
3.1
3.7
5
0.13
0.
4
0.1
9
0.0
4
3.35
100.6
6
14.26
5.25
0.4
2.25
2.1
3.09
3.5
7
0.29
0.
1
0.0
1
0.1
3.6
99.25
0.72
14.38
5.14
0.34
2.65
2.28
3.33
3.3
7
0.26
0.
1
0.1
0.1
4
3.17
98.65
65.1
6
0.71
14.68
5.7
0.33
2.26
1.66
2.86
3.5
3
0.22
0.
1
0.0
8
0.0
4
3.23
100.5
7
GHN-KMD0077
68.8
4
0.37
13.93
4.004
0.11
4
0.85
0.84
3.02
3.9
6
0.16
5
0.
1
0.1
2
0.0
4
3.4
99.7
GHN-KMD0078
70
0.43
13.14
3.597
0.11
3
1.08
0.38
2.92
3.9
3
0.17
3
0.
2
0.2
0.0
4
3.31
99.53
GHN-KMD0079
67.5
8
0.55
14.22
4.56
0.23
1.49
1.26
2.8
3.8
2
0.16
0.
2
0.1
7
0.0
5
3.21
100.2
5
GHN-KMD0080
64.1
8
0.68
14.57
5.193
0.37
5
2.37
2.35
3.36
3.4
0.30
9
0.
1
0.1
0.0
8
3.09
100.1
6
GHN-KMD0081
66.8
0.43
14.17
3.82
0.13
1.32
1.11
2.79
3.8
7
0.19
0.
3
0.1
4
0.0
5
3.16
98.3
GHN-KMD0082
60.3
0.74
14.32
5.31
0.64
2.74
2.74
3.46
3.0
5
0.34
0
0.2
5
0.1
2
4.6
98.64
GHN-KMD0088
64.3
5
0.49
14.19
4.19
0.16
1.51
1.13
2.92
3.8
0.21
0.
6
0.4
1
0.0
4
5.14
99.09
4
155
Na2
O
SO
4
CaO
Sample
SiO
2
TiO
2
Al2O
3
Fe2O3
T
Mn
O
Mg
O
CaO
Na2
O
K2
O
P2O
5
S
SO
4
C
LOI
Total
GHN-KMD0092
63.5
1
0.49
14.93
4.268
0.22
3
1.69
1.45
2.63
3.7
0.22
6
0.
4
0.4
7
0.0
4
5.43
99.5
GHN-KMD0095
75.4
0.16
11.65
1.727
0.02
5
0.39
0.14
0.47
4.8
1
0.03
2
0.
2
0.2
8
0.0
4
3.51
98.81
GHN-KMD0096
72.2
9
0.23
11.91
2.31
0.03
7
0.63
0.66
0.77
4.5
7
0.04
6
0.
2
0.6
6
0.0
6
4.84
99.17
GHN-KMD0097
67.2
0.37
12.99
3.245
0.12
1
0.98
0.92
5.1
4
0.14
7
0.
8
0.7
7
0.0
6
6.03
99.76
GHN-KMD0100
67.7
4
0.48
13.19
4.708
0.31
1
1.47
0.93
2.05
4.1
5
0.21
1
0
0.2
0.0
6
3.91
99.42
GHN-LFG0018
69.2
2
0.36
13.7
4.313
0.10
2
0.78
0.39
7
2.33
5
4.3
5
0.16
1
0
3.94
GHN-LFG0020
72.4
9
0.28
12.49
4.044
0.14
3
0.69
0.59
8
2.61
9
4.5
3
0.12
5
0
2.25
GHN-LFG0037
61.3
2
0.5
13.88
5.1
0.29
1.87
1.39
2.05
3.5
7
0.24
0
5.5
GHN-LFG0041
75.4
5
0.16
12.02
2.42
0.09
1
0.24
0.21
2
2.57
9
4.9
2
0.04
4
0
1.92
GHN-LFG0060
64.6
4
0.58
3
13.49
4.664
0.10
9
1.57
1.17
2.64
3.4
4
0.21
3
GHN-LFG0085
62.6
6
0.69
14.68
6.13
0.28
2.48
2.08
2.62
3.5
6
0.24
GHN-LFG0086
60.4
0.67
14.25
6.09
0.3
2.37
2.03
2.53
3.4
6
0.31
GHN-LFG0088
61.2
5
0.77
14.44
5.04
0.3
2.77
2.96
3.31
3.4
1
0.27
GHN-LFG0089
70.7
1
0.30
7
13.21
3.09
0.05
4
0.52
0.6
3.07
4.3
0.12
1
GHN-LFG0090
60.3
6
0.77
14.7
6.52
0.46
2.55
2.3
3.32
3.3
7
0.29
0.
6
0.3
1
0.1
3
4.13
99.78
GHN-LFG0091
62.4
4
0.59
14.64
4.66
0.05
1
1.52
0.78
2.94
3.6
5
0.17
9
1.
5
0.9
6
0.0
5
6.87
100.8
GHN-RDL0002
71
0.63
14.27
1.3
0.02
0.64
0.09
0.11
4.2
4
0.07
0
0.1
9
0.3
1
4.29
97.17
GHN-RDL0003
71.8
4
0.64
15.09
0.67
0.02
0.76
0.06
0.04
4.4
1
0.03
0
3.14
GHN-SAW0003
80.9
3
0.15
11.21
0.645
0.01
8
0.31
0.03
2
0.05
6
3.5
6
0.02
9
0.
1
0.0
9
0.0
4
2.21
99.41
GHN-SAW0004
62.6
3
0.57
14.32
5.437
0.05
2
1.25
0.72
1
2.67
8
3.6
5
0.13
3
0.
3
1.0
3
0.0
7
7.04
99.87
GHN-SAW-
75.3
0.17
11.85
2.945
0.08
1.41
5.0
0.04
0.1
0.0
2.69
100.2
0.04
0.34
156
5.12
0
0.2
4
0.0
4
4.94
100.6
8
5.32
0.
1
0.0
5
0.2
3
6.03
100.8
8
2.39
0
Sample
SiO
2
TiO
2
Al2O
3
Fe2O3
T
Mn
O
0005
4
GHN-SAW0200
61.0
4
0.58
14.78
5.201
0.20
4
GHN-SAW0201
69.8
0.26
12.26
6
4.303
GHN-VTM0263
71.1
7
0.33
8
13.01
GHN-VTM0293
69.6
6
0.35
9
GHN-VTM0450
63.4
5
GHN-VTM0453
Mg
O
CaO
Na2
O
K2
O
P2O
5
7
7
6
6
1.71
1.21
2
0.79
3
3.6
0.21
9
0.05
8
0.77
0.41
7
1.07
7
4.2
2
4.345
0.07
2
0.86
0.67
0.5
13.27
4.279
0.12
5
0.99
1.35
0.77
14.62
6.38
0.36
2.6
59.8
0.71
14.49
6.18
0.46
GHN-VTM0508
55.3
2
0.59
15.18
5.61
GHN-VTM0554
49.6
9
0.54
14.31
GHN-VTM0598
76.4
4
0.23
GHN-VTM0599
59.8
7
GHN-VTM0603
SO
4
C
6
3
0.
1
0.2
6
0.28
6
0.
1
3.9
3
0.16
9
0.86
3.8
6
1.68
3.27
2.57
2.26
0.07
1.62
4.4
0.21
7
12.4
1.94
0.56
15.65
61.3
1
0.68
GHN-VTM0606
71.2
5
GHN-VTM0607
LOI
Total
0.5
1
6.02
96.23
0.4
9
0.1
5
5.46
99.64
2.
4
0.3
7
0.0
6
5.07
102.9
5
0.14
4
1.
9
0.6
0.1
1
5.53
103.0
8
3.3
0.25
0.
1
0.1
1
0.0
6
3.19
100.1
2.61
3.5
3
0.29
1.
3
0.4
7
0.1
4
5.13
99.95
2.32
2.51
3
0.25
0.
1
1.8
6
0.1
3
9.81
98.32
1.93
6.58
0.07
3.4
4
0.22
1
0.0
1
9.21
0.05
0.53
0.21
0.16
3.7
3
0.04
0.0
1
4.19
4.873
0.18
6
2.1
2.25
0.74
3.7
4
0.21
9
0.
2
0.0
4
0.5
3
6.08
97.03
15.99
5.33
0.1
1.75
0.77
0.93
3.6
4
0.15
0
0.6
3
0.8
9
8.37
100.5
5
0.35
12.09
3.63
0.06
0.67
0.31
1.09
4.2
7
0.16
0
0.3
3
0.1
3
5.32
99.69
68.8
8
0.5
14.32
4.05
0.16
1.21
0.57
1.45
3.8
1
0.14
0.
2
0.3
9
0.0
7
5.25
101.0
3
GHN-VTM0614
63.7
2
0.71
18.09
4.14
0.05
1.23
4.11
0.21
5.3
6
0.06
0
2.5
3
0.2
3
9.28
109.7
2
GHR-VWL0004
58.5
3
0.68
16.41
8.4
0.11
1.84
0.37
0.4
4.1
6
0.17
0
9.15
HAS-GJG0006
49.7
9
1.00
2
13.46
8.052
0.12
5
5.68
3.11
0.63
4.0
2
0.56
8
2.
6
1.7
0.0
3
11.3
5
102.0
7
HAS-GJG0007
46.8
6
0.84
12.39
9.339
0.08
4
4.7
4.19
0.74
2.4
4
0.66
3.
3
2.6
8
0.0
2
15.6
3
103.9
HAS-GJG0008
47.3
1
0.93
8
12.43
7.975
0.12
4
5.29
4.39
0.45
2.5
4
0.43
9
0.
3
2.9
8
0.0
5
13.5
8
98.75
HAS-GJG0009
59.1
8
1.04
8
21.37
1.232
0.00
9
0.61
1.07
0.11
5.9
6
0.16
6
0.
2
0.9
7
0.0
1
6.33
98.23
HAS-GJG0010
66.8
9
0.77
8
14.32
2.002
0.04
9
2.29
1.11
0.07
4.0
4
0.16
1
0.
1
0.8
9
0.0
2
6.27
98.98
6
157
S
Sample
SiO
2
TiO
2
Al2O
3
Fe2O3
T
Mn
O
Mg
O
CaO
Na2
O
K2
O
P2O
5
S
SO
4
C
LOI
Total
MID-AAF0001
61.9
7
0.51
3
13.72
2
5.148
0.05
2
1.27
1.67
2.04
4.0
9
0.19
7
0.
5
1.2
4
0.0
3
7.2
99.62
MID-AAF0002
63.0
1
0.51
7
13.67
5.005
0.03
9
1.14
1.61
1.34
4.1
9
0.15
3
0.
4
1.2
9
0.0
4
7.6
99.98
MID-VTM0002
73.3
5
0.14
11.05
2.62
0.05
0.43
0.57
0.31
4.8
2
0.04
1
0.5
3
0.0
2
3.98
98.92
MIN-AAF0001
73.3
4
0.39
1
12.82
3.014
0.02
1
0.66
0.1
0.39
4.2
9
0.11
4
0
0.3
8
0.2
3
4.27
100.0
2
MIN-AAF0004
71.8
5
0.37
6
13.14
3.19
0.01
8
0.62
0.09
0.45
4.3
9
0.12
0
0.4
3
0.2
6
4.71
99.65
MIN-AAF0010
70.2
0.49
9
13.68
2.948
0.02
0.67
0.06
0.42
4.5
1
0.09
8
0.
1
0.6
2
0.3
9
4.58
98.76
MIN-AAF0012
70.7
6
0.36
4
12.4
3.751
0.02
0.63
0.04
0.4
3.9
9
0.13
7
0
0.6
0.2
1
5.2
98.51
MIN-AAF0013
74.8
3
0.33
12.12
1.74
0.02
0.5
0.04
0.53
4.2
8
0.07
0
0.2
3
0.0
7
3.2
97.97
MIN-AAF0015
74.4
7
0.40
7
12.36
1.782
0.01
8
0.59
0.04
0.56
4.3
0.06
6
0
0.2
2
0.0
4
3.07
97.95
MIN-GFA0001
72.6
5
0.50
2
13.17
2.442
0.22
0.79
0.1
0.62
4.3
1
0.10
2
0.
1
0.2
1
0.0
2
3.46
98.65
MIN-GFA0003
70.8
8
0.46
12.98
3.586
0.39
1.23
0.71
1.07
3.5
3
0.17
9
0.
1
0.0
7
0.0
3
2.91
98.11
MIN-GFA0005
73.7
0.39
2
13.2
2.112
0.02
2
0.68
0.02
0.46
4.1
9
0.09
2
0.
1
0.2
5
0.0
1
3.68
98.86
MIN-GFA0009
74.7
0.39
7
12.5
2.585
0.02
0.6
0.06
0.57
4.0
3
0.12
9
0
0.2
3
0.0
3
3.42
99.3
MIN-SAN0002
71.0
7
0.45
12.74
2.96
0.02
0.64
0.1
0.69
4.2
3
0.12
0
0.5
4
0.3
4.68
98.54
MIN-VTM0003
67.0
2
0.47
14.55
3.091
0.04
3
1.01
1.4
2.51
4.9
1
0.16
4
0
0.2
1
0.0
4
4.3
99.75
MIN-VTM0004
65.1
6
0.54
2
13.29
4.026
0.07
9
1.48
1.45
1.79
4.1
0.22
1
0.
1
0.6
9
0.1
4
5.13
98.22
MIN-VTM0006
67.0
4
0.50
9
12.72
3.146
0.02
9
1.18
1.81
1.5
4.1
2
0.18
3
0
1.0
3
0.0
5
5.64
98.98
MIN-VTM0007
66.8
4
0.56
5
13.5
4.389
0.03
9
1.42
0.72
1.55
4.1
2
0.23
4
0
0.4
2
0.0
8
4.99
98.88
MIN-VTM0008
68.0
1
0.53
5
13.43
3.718
0.06
5
1.35
0.61
1.87
4.2
4
0.20
3
0.
1
0.1
9
0.4
4
4.43
99.16
MIN-VTM0009
65.2
7
0.53
6
13.14
4.455
0.05
1.44
1.36
1.62
4.0
2
0.21
9
0
0.7
7
0.0
4
5.93
98.86
PIT-LFG-
64.3
0.57
13.89
4.126
1.19
0.44
0.10
0.
1.2
0.0
0.04
158
1.90
3.8
8.29
100.5
Sample
SiO
2
TiO
2
Al2O
3
Fe2O3
T
Mn
O
Mg
O
0013
7
PIT-RDL0002
78.1
1
0.15
11.39
1.188
0.01
7
0.29
0.06
0.39
PIT-VCV0001
62.6
4
0.68
6
15.49
5.346
0.13
4
0.9
1.02
PIT-VCV0002
68.3
7
0.35
2
13.16
4.235
0.12
3
0.75
PIT-VCV0003
61.4
4
0.70
8
16.07
5.83
0.09
7
PIT-VCV0004
81.8
0.13
5
10.45
0.803
PIT-VCV0005
79.6
7
0.13
3
10.62
1.463
P2O
5
S
SO
4
C
2
5
3
5
5.8
6
0.02
4
0.
1
2.62
4.7
5
0.33
7
4.
4
1.32
0.9
5.3
0.13
4
1.34
0.81
3.42
3.9
2
0.02
9
0.33
0
0.07
0.03
4
0.36
0
0.07
CaO
9
Na2
O
K2
O
5
Total
5
0
1.81
0.0
5
0.1
5
4.91
103.4
6
3.
1
0.0
5
0.2
9
4.05
102.1
6
0.34
2
4.
5
0.0
6
0.0
7
5.09
103.6
6
3.4
6
0.02
3
0
0.0
1
0.0
2
1.99
99.14
3.4
8
0.02
1
0
0.2
3
0.0
2
4.77
100.8
9
0
0.1
3
0.0
5
PIT-VCV0006
PIT-VCV0007
66
0.56
14.88
4.301
0.05
7
0.85
1.04
1.28
5.6
1
0.19
2.
4
0.0
6
0.1
6
4.21
101.5
7
PIT-VCV0008
68.8
4
0.44
3
12.56
3.806
0.14
0.79
2.29
0.38
4.4
5
0.16
2
2.
2
0.0
4
0.6
7
4.76
101.4
9
PIT-VCV0009
63.4
9
0.59
1
14.29
6.138
0.15
3
1.3
1.37
1.75
4.1
1
0.22
5
3.
3
0.0
6
0.2
6
4.9
101.9
4
PIT-VCV0010
66.9
8
0.46
7
14.45
2.277
0.03
2
1.16
1.12
2.4
6.1
6
0.18
7
1.
6
0.0
5
0.2
3
3.46
100.5
2
PIT-VCV0011
66.4
9
0.49
14.21
2.695
0.08
3
1.29
1.52
2.12
5.2
4
0.17
9
1.
9
0.0
5
0.3
4.38
100.9
3
PIT-VCV0012
71.6
5
0.32
4
12.45
3.267
0.17
4
0.64
1.14
0.2
5.1
9
0.10
7
1.
5
0.0
3
0.3
6
3.79
100.8
5
PIT-VCV0013
73.9
7
0.27
8
11.81
2.2
0.12
3
0.55
1.57
0.08
4.0
5
0.08
3
1.
1
0.0
4
0.3
7
3.47
99.65
PIT-VCV0014
73.3
0.3
12.35
2.398
0.13
3
0.58
0.96
0.12
4.7
3
0.08
8
1.
1
0.0
4
0.2
9
3.22
99.59
PIT-VCV0015
76.0
4
0.15
7
11.49
0.539
0.00
7
0.19
0.34
1.91
6.4
5
0.03
1
0.
3
0.0
2
0.0
6
1.09
98.66
PIT-VCV0016
67.8
3
0.72
6
14.1
1.155
0.04
4
1.22
1.44
1.79
6.9
8
0.24
7
0.
1
0.0
3
0.2
4
2.47
98.4
PIT-VCV0017
70.0
5
0.47
13.96
0.408
0.02
4
0.71
0.88
0.99
7.2
5
0.15
9
0.
5
0.0
4
0.1
4
2.48
98.02
PIT-VCV0018
71.0
7
0.33
12.52
0.649
0.02
2
0.57
1.04
1.41
6.7
8
0.11
6
0.
5
0.0
2
0.2
2
2.24
97.52
PIT-VCV0019
61.1
1
0.70
9
18.55
3.08
0.02
5
0.17
2.65
0.31
3.6
8
0.27
9
0.
6
1.4
0.0
3
7.03
99.57
159
LOI
Sample
SiO
2
TiO
2
Al2O
3
Fe2O3
T
Mn
O
Mg
O
CaO
Na2
O
K2
O
P2O
5
S
SO
4
C
LOI
Total
PIT-VCV0020
60.3
2
0.75
18.5
4.356
0.04
7
0.33
1.89
0.49
5.2
6
0.29
6
1.
4
0.1
0.0
5
5.55
99.38
PIT-VCV0021
52.1
1
0.85
8
13.48
5.874
0.10
1
4.16
4.63
2.18
3.9
0.37
5
2
2.2
8
0.0
5
8.36
100.3
1
PIT-VCV0022
54.3
3
0.86
12.5
7.65
0.07
5
3
4.19
3.28
2.7
7
0.39
9
4.
7
1.8
5
0.0
5
8.95
104.5
6
PIT-VCV0023
51.6
2
0.83
8
11.98
8.734
0.04
8
1.46
4.51
2.33
3.0
6
0.42
1
6.
3
2.0
4
0.0
6
10.8
3
104.2
6
PIT-VCV0024
61.8
6
0.66
15.36
1.529
0.08
6
0.73
5.22
0.21
5.3
9
0.53
4
1
0.1
3
0.1
3.81
96.63
PIT-VCV0025
68.1
4
0.50
9
13.49
4.73
0.07
8
1.08
0.68
0.18
4.9
4
0.19
9
3.
4
0.1
9
0.1
2
4.86
102.5
8
PIT-VCV0026
65.7
9
0.53
2
13.6
5.599
0.03
3
1.24
0.49
0.27
5
0.17
3
4.
1
0.1
8
0.0
5
5.53
102.5
5
PIT-VCV0027
64.8
5
0.54
8
15.73
4.51
0.01
9
1.37
0.72
1.6
4.9
9
0.24
2
2.
7
0.0
5
0.1
4.3
101.7
PIT-VCV0028
75.2
1
0.17
2
12.04
0.539
0.01
5
0.15
0.5
2.81
5.9
1
0.03
2
0.
2
0.0
4
0.1
2
0.91
98.68
PIT-VCV0029
63.5
8
0.54
4
15.8
4.081
0.03
9
1.54
1.37
1.67
5.6
0.24
2.
4
0.0
6
0.2
5
4.32
101.5
3
PIT-VCV0030
64.8
1
0.53
9
15.51
3.784
0.02
5
1.5
1.15
1.34
5.0
2
0.24
6
2.
5
0.0
4
0.2
4.99
101.6
3
PIT-VTM0001
65.6
3
0.73
8
15.41
5.005
0.18
5
2.13
1.02
3.67
1.9
2
0.21
8
3.33
PIT-VTM0002
62.1
8
0.55
4
14.84
5.984
0.13
9
2.36
2.57
3.63
3.5
5
0.24
8
2.73
QPS-AAF0001
66.2
2
0.6
14.16
3.88
0.05
1.23
0.88
5
1.85
3.6
1
0.2
0.
1
0.5
5
0.0
9
5.27
98.7
QPS-AAF0003
63.0
6
0.59
2
14.53
4.796
0.05
4
1.57
1.25
1.88
3.7
1
0.24
1
0.
1
0.9
1
0.0
3
6.74
99.42
QPS-AAF0005
61.8
5
0.59
9
14.31
4.84
0.04
9
1.54
1.44
1.82
3.6
5
0.23
0
1.1
7
0.0
3
8.03
99.58
QPS-AAF0009
63.9
5
0.69
2
14.47
4.334
0.02
8
1.02
1.61
1.21
3.6
5
0.26
3
0.
2
1.1
8
0.0
3
6.93
99.55
QPS-AAF0020
62.8
8
0.63
7
14.42
5.357
0.03
5
1.27
1.04
1.55
3.7
5
0.31
0
1.0
2
0.0
5
7.16
99.49
QPS-AAF0022
64.3
4
0.62
6
14.57
4.785
0.03
4
1.34
0.74
1.56
3.5
9
0.25
4
0.
1
0.7
5
0.0
8
6.08
98.8
QPS-SAN0002
67.6
9
0.5
13.66
3.36
0.02
0.93
0.68
1.24
3.7
1
0.17
0
0.9
7
0.0
4
5.13
98.1
QPS-VTM-
63.6
0.61
14.26
4.58
0.04
1.4
1
1.85
3.6
0.24
0.
0.7
0.0
6.27
98.4
160
Sample
SiO
2
TiO
2
Al2O
3
Fe2O3
T
Mn
O
Mg
O
0001
2
ROC-KMD0001
61.1
4
0.7
13.61
5.27
0.13
3.11
2.86
2.84
3.2
3
ROC-KMD0002
60.4
0.73
14.18
5.654
0.09
3.44
5.26
3.5
ROC-VTM0032
58.6
9
0.66
16.11
5.99
0.1
1.3
3.12
SCS-LFG0004
61.4
8
0.52
5
15.44
5
2.235
0.06
2.71
SCS-LFG0005
64.9
7
0.61
15.86
2.81
0.07
SCS-LFG0006
67.0
7
0.55
15.6
1.97
SCS-LFG0007
65.2
7
0.51
15.13
SCS-LFG0008
64.7
5
0.46
SPR-AAF0001
62
SPR-AAF0003
K2
O
P2O
5
SO
4
C
1
5
5
0.35
0.
1
0.0
1
4.1
0.35
0
2.41
3.0
1
0.16
1.89
0.81
5
2.6
2.58
1.53
0.85
0.05
2.19
0.76
3.2
0.06
2.06
13.28
9
0.01
0.78
14.42
5.5
60.2
5
0.79
14.42
SPR-SAN0002
59.7
4
0.73
SPR-VTM0005
62.1
2
SPR-VTM0008
LOI
Total
1.7
4
6.81
101.8
5
0.0
1
0.0
6
1.38
99.17
0
0
0
6.49
98.04
0.13
0.
3
1.3
5
0.0
7
7.82
97.38
4.1
1
0.14
0.
9
1.1
3
0.0
4
5.59
101.2
2
3.03
3.8
1
0.19
0.
3
0.4
6
0.0
5
4.59
100.5
9
0.49
3.81
3.7
9
0.24
1.
7
0.1
2
0.0
5
4.29
100.7
3
0.46
0.25
0.15
3.9
2
0.19
7.
4
0.3
6
0.0
5
7.44
107.6
8
0.11
3.69
2.18
3.38
2.7
7
0.33
0.
3
0.1
2
0.0
4
2.96
98.57
5.82
0.13
3.31
1.86
3.2
3.0
4
0.35
0.
3
0.2
7
0.0
5
4.24
98.02
14.39
5.9
0.11
2.96
2.31
2.79
3.5
0.38
0.
2
0.4
6
0.0
5
4.22
97.72
0.71
1
15.74
6.006
0.09
2.69
1.82
4.72
3.2
1
0.34
5
0.
3
0.0
4
0.0
6
2.04
99.92
60.5
4
0.75
2
14.51
7
5.887
0.1
3.87
2.59
6
3.56
5
2.8
1
0.32
2
0
0.0
3
0.2
1
3.37
98.6
SPR-VTM0010
61.9
0.81
4
14.51
6.116
0.13
3.81
2.65
3.54
2.7
2
0.34
1
0.
4
0.0
3
0.2
8
3.1
100.3
8
SPR-VTM0012
80.1
1
0.14
5
11.66
0.308
0.00
9
0.23
0.02
0.14
3.4
8
0.03
5
0.
2
0.1
1
0.0
3
2.64
99.07
SPR-VTM0014
77.6
9
0.15
11.55
0.9
0.01
0.27
0.02
0.36
4
0.03
0.
1
0.1
1
0.0
3
2.44
97.65
SPR-VTM0017
76.1
7
0.29
3
12.85
1.397
0.01
5
0.51
0.01
0.14
4.2
3
0.02
8
0.
5
0.2
1
0.0
3
3.23
99.57
SPR-VTM0021
76.7
7
0.15
11.8
1.09
0.02
0.37
0.01
0.11
4.2
9
0.03
0.
1
0.1
1
0.0
1
2.71
97.6
SSS-AAF0001
59.4
4
0.64
14.29
6.34
0.06
2.28
1.85
1.33
3.6
7
0.27
0.
3
0.8
3
0.0
2
6.79
98.09
SSS-AAF0004
59.5
6
0.57
6
13.67
8
6.596
0.05
9
2.65
2.26
5
1.55
2.8
6
0.27
6
0.
3
1.0
2
0.0
2
7.3
98.74
161
Na2
O
S
CaO
Sample
SiO
2
TiO
2
Al2O
3
Fe2O3
T
Mn
O
Mg
O
CaO
Na2
O
K2
O
P2O
5
S
SO
4
C
LOI
Total
SSS-AAF0005
64.1
2
0.64
14.46
5.69
0.04
1
2.03
0.76
0.67
3.5
9
0.23
0.
2
0.7
8
0.0
3
6.4
99.63
SSS-AAF0007
59.5
0.61
5
13.72
7.0697
0.06
2
2.57
1.88
1.66
3.1
1
0.29
8
0.
3
0.9
6
0.0
3
7.44
99.23
SSS-AAF0009
73.6
2
0.31
3
12.62
1.62
0.02
5
0.72
0.45
0.58
4.1
1
0.03
4
0.
3
0.4
5
0.0
3
4.08
98.91
SSS-EHP0002
68.5
3
0.47
8
12.85
3.102
0.09
5
1.56
1.88
2.17
4.6
5
0.19
0.
9
0.1
1
0.2
1
3.02
99.78
SSS-EHP0003
70.1
4
0.37
4
12.7
2.981
0.67
0.71
1.42
1.74
5.3
3
0.13
8
1.
3
0.1
5
0.1
9
3.14
101.0
1
SSS-EHP0011
65.6
6
0.52
13.87
3.45
0.03
9
1.53
1.58
1.41
5.5
1
0.19
8
1.
8
0.0
8
0.2
3
3.4
99.26
SSS-EHP0012
61.6
6
0.71
6
14.67
4.78
0.06
9
2.63
2.19
1.67
4.6
6
0.34
1
1.
9
0.1
4
0.2
9
4.04
99.73
SSS-EHP0014
59.8
4
0.80
8
14.68
1
5.446
0.11
4
3.35
3.47
9
3.55
3
0.37
5
0.
8
0.0
9
0.3
5
3.09
98.99
SSS-EHP0015
57.4
4
0.79
9
14.01
6.597
0.10
7
4.44
3.24
7
3.29
3.0
5
0.42
2
1.
6
0.3
5
0.1
9
4.5
100.0
4
SSS-EHP0017
59.0
1
0.70
6
14.52
3
6.311
0.06
2.35
2.12
1.3
3.8
5
0.33
8
2.
4
0.9
1
0.0
9
7.55
101.5
5
SSS-EHP0019
60.7
7
0.69
15.16
8
6.103
0.05
7
1.72
1.44
1.48
8
3.9
2
0.28
7
2.
9
0.6
1
0.0
5
6.61
101.8
SSS-EHP0020
64.8
8
0.45
6
13.37
5
3.265
0.06
2
1.33
1.05
8
1.39
1
4.5
7
0.16
2
1.
3
0.9
1
0.0
4
7.05
99.89
SSS-EHP0023
62.2
9
0.52
5
14.41
5
4.655
0.11
5
1.27
1.03
5
0.87
5
3.9
2
0.15
0.1
8
9.95
5
SSS-EHP0025
68.1
9
0.38
3
13.57
4
3.68
0.1
1.14
0.63
7
1.38
4.1
3
0.14
9
1.
2
0.4
2
0.0
5
4.84
99.91
SSS-EHP0031
71.6
7
0.35
5
12.81
3.29
0.11
5
0.95
0.56
1.3
4.2
1
0.11
0.
5
0.1
6
0.0
2
3.1
99.15
SSS-EHP0032
72.0
4
0.33
6
12.37
2.662
0.10
5
0.9
0.71
1.39
4.6
8
0.10
9
0.
5
0.2
1
0.1
3.23
99.32
SSS-EHP0033
70.2
9
0.47
8
13.35
3.597
0.12
6
1.19
0.62
2.24
4.1
8
0.16
9
0.
1
0.0
7
0.0
3
2.79
99.21
SSS-EHP0034
70.0
1
0.43
4
13.39
3.718
0.16
7
1.2
0.53
2.26
4.2
6
0.16
9
0.
2
0.0
8
0.0
4
3.04
99.45
SSS-EHP0036
68.3
7
0.52
8
14.09
4.07
0.08
5
1.15
0.65
1.67
3.4
3
0.18
7
1.
2
0.1
9
0.0
4
3.96
99.57
SSS-VEV0001
49.4
8
0.79
11.43
22.759
0.01
7
0.69
0.14
7
1.71
3
3.0
1
0.22
2
0.
9
0
8.47
SSS-VTM-
69.4
0.50
13.98
4.29
0.13
1.28
0.66
1.25
162
3.7
0.21
0.
4.17
Sample
SiO
2
TiO
2
Al2O
3
Fe2O3
T
Mn
O
Mg
O
0012
8
3
SSS-VTM0600
67.3
1
0.52
6
14.75
4.444
0.13
2
1.25
0.82
1.5
4.1
0.22
5
SSW-AAF0001
60.2
8
0.78
14.9
6.54
0.11
2.25
1.58
2.35
3.6
4
SSW-AAF0002
61.9
9
0.57
7
14.08
5.456
0.09
7
1.75
1.75
1.13
SSW-AAF0005
60.0
1
0.56
13.63
5.3
0.06
1.86
1.85
SSW-AAF0007
64.7
7
0.57
13.76
4.58
0.05
1.69
SSW-SAN0002
62.5
6
0.59
14.28
5.03
0.07
SSW-SAN0006
65.7
1
0.47
13.16
3.7
SSW-VTM0001
68.4
0.34
11.64
SSW-VTM0016
62.2
4
0.67
9
SSW-VTM0019
60.9
9
SSW-VTM0023
K2
O
P2O
5
C
LOI
Total
0.
1
0.1
0.0
6
4.2
99.53
0.36
0.
2
0.1
0.0
6
6.01
99.18
3.6
5
0.21
2
0.
4
0.4
3
0.0
7
7.48
99.11
2.28
3.6
7
0.25
0.
1
1.3
4
0.0
4
7.63
98.6
1.14
1.67
3.8
3
0.24
0.
8
0.6
1
0.0
4
5.37
99.11
1.79
1.29
2.38
3.7
8
0.25
0.
2
1.2
6
0.0
3
5.44
98.95
0.06
0.93
0.87
0.9
4.0
3
0.12
0.
1
1.4
5
0.0
3
6.84
98.32
3.619
0.08
1
0.84
1.34
0.8
3.5
9
0.07
5
0.
2
1.3
9
0.0
2
7.86
100.2
4
14.9
5.995
0.10
5
2.01
1.98
2.5
3.6
1
0.30
3
0.
9
0.2
7
0.1
4
4.6
100.2
1
0.65
2
14.74
6.204
0.1
2.04
1.85
2.48
3.6
6
0.29
5
1
0.5
8
0.0
7
5.48
100.1
2
61.4
6
0.62
7
14.62
6.061
0.08
6
1.86
1.88
1.91
3.6
9
0.27
6
1.
4
0.5
5
0.0
8
5.87
100.3
3
SSW-VTM0028
62.7
9
0.63
8
14.46
5.852
0.01
2.2
1.33
1.67
3.6
3
0.26
8
0.
5
0.6
6
0.0
3
5.58
99.59
SSW-VTM0030
62.1
4
0.62
8
14.47
5.467
0.08
7
1.78
2.09
1.88
3.6
6
0.26
3
0.
6
0.7
1
0.0
7
5.8
99.68
SWH-GJG0008
62.5
2
0.40
2
12.69
3.883
0.03
5
1.02
2.32
2.72
4.3
6
0.21
3
0.
3
1.4
9
0.0
3
7.64
99.64
SWH-GJG0009
49.7
1
0.42
3
11.99
10.494
0.08
5
1.79
2.73
2.23
2.8
2
0.67
1
0.
6
2.5
9
0.0
5
13.9
8
100.1
5
SWH-GJG0012
66.1
1
0.56
7
15.49
1.375
0.03
6
1.61
1.13
2.94
2.9
6
0.04
8
0.
4
0.7
5
0.0
2
5.47
98.91
SWH-GJG0015
53.1
3
0.49
2
13.12
5.203
0.06
4
2.35
4.26
1.26
2.3
5
0.39
4
0.
1
3.4
1
0.0
2
13.9
100.0
3
9
163
Na2
O
SO
4
CaO
S
1
Table B7: Summary statistics of the point load strength for GHN rock-pile samples. Geologic conceptual
model is in Figure 1.3.
Location
Unit I
Unit J
Unit N
Unit K
Unit O
Unit R
Unit S
Statistics
Point Load Strength
Index
No. of Samples
Mean (MPa)
Standard Deviation (MPa)
Minimum (MPa)
Maximum (MPa)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (MPa)
Standard Deviation (MPa)
Minimum (MPa)
Maximum (MPa)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (MPa)
Standard Deviation (MPa)
Minimum (MPa)
Maximum (MPa)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (MPa)
Standard Deviation (MPa)
Minimum (MPa)
Maximum (MPa)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (MPa)
Standard Deviation (MPa)
Minimum (MPa)
Maximum (MPa)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (MPa)
Standard Deviation (MPa)
Minimum (MPa)
Maximum (MPa)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (MPa)
Standard Deviation (MPa)
Minimum (MPa)
Maximum (MPa)
2
1.1
NA
0.6
1.6
NA
6
5.0
1.7
3.3
7.0
34.0
4
2.6
1.4
1.1
4.5
53.8
4
5.3
2.0
3.7
8.2
37.7
4
3.5
1.3
2.4
5.4
37.1
2
5.8
NA
4.3
7.3
NA
3
4.0
1.0
3.4
5.3
164
Location
Unit U
Unit UV
Unit M
Rubble
Statistics
Point Load Strength
Index
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (MPa)
Standard Deviation (MPa)
Minimum (MPa)
Maximum (MPa)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (MPa)
Standard Deviation (MPa)
Minimum (MPa)
Maximum (MPa)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (MPa)
Standard Deviation (MPa)
Minimum (MPa)
Maximum (MPa)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (MPa)
Standard Deviation (MPa)
Minimum (MPa)
Maximum (MPa)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
25.0
1
6.1
NA
6.1
6.1
NA
2
5.3
NA
4.5
6.1
NA
1
3.7
NA
3.7
3.7
NA
1
6.5
NA
6.5
6.5
NA
Table B8: Summary statistics of the slake durability indices for GHN rock pile samples. Geologic
conceptual model is in Figure 1.3.
Slake Durability
Units
Statistics
Index
Traffic
Unit C
Unit I
No. of Samples
Mean (%)
Standard Deviation (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (%)
Standard Deviation (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (%)
165
2
97.0
NA
96.0
98.0
NA
1
97.9
NA
97.9
97.9
NA
4
87.9
Units
Unit J
Unit N
Unit K
Unit O
Unit R
unit S
Unit U
Statistics
Slake Durability
Index
Standard Deviation (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (%)
Standard Deviation (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (%)
Standard Deviation (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (%)
Standard Deviation (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (%)
Standard Deviation (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (%)
Standard Deviation (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (%)
Standard Deviation (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (%)
Standard Deviation (%)
5.5
82.2
95.0
6.3
7
95.8
1.9
94.0
98.5
2.0
5
96.3
1.4
94.0
98.5
1.5
5
96.2
2.2
93.6
98.4
2.3
18
96.5
1.4
93.6
98.1
1.5
2
96.4
NA
95.5
97.3
NA
3
97.4
1.6
95.6
98.4
1.6
5
97.7
0.6
166
Units
Unit UV
Unit M
Rubble
Colluvium
Unstable GHN
Statistics
Slake Durability
Index
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (%)
Standard Deviation (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (%)
Standard Deviation (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (%)
Standard Deviation (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (%)
Standard Deviation (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean (%)
Standard Deviation (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
97.1
98.5
0.6
3
96.7
0.8
95.9
97.4
0.8
1
96.6
NA
96.6
96.6
NA
7
97.4
1.1
95.2
98.5
1.1
9.0
95.7
1.7
93.0
98.5
1.8
11
95.7
5.1
80.9
99.2
5.3
167
Table B9: Summary statistics of the point load strength for all rock pile samples. Location of Questa rock
piles is in Figure 1.2.
Point Load
Rock Pile Location
Statistics
Strength Index
Goat Hill North
(GHN)
Spring Gulch (SPR)
Sugar Shack South
(SSS)
Sugar Shack West
(SSW)
Middle (MID)
No. of Samples
Mean(MPa)
Standard Deviation (MPa)
Minimum (MPa)
Maximum (MPa)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean(MPa)
Standard deviation (MPa)
Minimum (MPa)
Maximum (MPa)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean(MPa)
Standard Deviation (MPa)
Minimum (MPa)
Maximum (MPa)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean(MPa)
Standard Deviation (MPa)
Minimum (MPa)
Maximum (MPa)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
No. of Samples
Mean(MPa)
Standard Deviation (MPa)
Minimum (MPa)
Maximum (MPa)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
31
4.3
1.9
0.6
8.2
43.4
7
3.0
1.2
1.3
4.8
38.8
8
2.2
0.8
1.0
3.8
35.9
11
4.2
1.3
2.0
6.1
31.0
2
4.5
NA
4.4
4.5
NA
Table B10: Summary statistics of the slake durability indices for all rock pile samples. The locations of the
Questa rock piles are in Figure 1.2.
Location
Statistics
Slake Durability Index
Number of Samples
76
Mean (%)
96.1
Standard Deviation (%)
3.2
GHN
Minimum (%)
80.9
Maximum (%)
99.2
Coefficient of Variation (%)
3.4
Number of Samples
8
SPR
Mean (%)
96.1
168
Location
SSS
SSW
MID
Statistics
Standard Deviation (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
Number of Samples
Mean (%)
Standard Deviation (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
Number of Samples
Mean (%)
Standard Deviation (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
Number of Samples
Mean (%)
Standard Deviation (%)
Minimum (%)
Maximum (%)
Coefficient of Variation (%)
169
Slake Durability Index
5.2
83.5
99.2
5.4
30
97.4
2.8
85.3
99.5
2.7
15
96.3
4.0
82.3
98.6
4.1
3
96.9
1.1
95.6
97.6
1.1
APPENDIX B2. METHODOLOGY IN CALCULATION OF POINT LOAD
STRENGTH INDEX OF A SAMPLE
The plot of P versus De2 of rock fragments of a sample generally results in a straight line
but points around this line are usually scattered for weathered irregular rock fragments.
Hence ISRM, 1985 states that points that deviate from the straight line should be
disregarded but should not be deleted. Figure B1 shows a plot of P versus De2 with the
entire data points whereas Figure B2 shows a plot with the removed deviated points. The
average of Is50 values of these remaining points is the reported Is50 for each sample.
Figure B1: P (peak load) versus De2 for sample MIN-SAN-0001 with 14 test points with
graphical IS50 of 4.0 MPa and an average IS50 using the correction factor (equation 2) for
the entire 14 tests of 4.82 MPa.
Figure B2: P (peak load) versus De2 (equivalent diameter) for sample MIN-SAN-0001
with 10 test points after eliminating the points deviating from the straight line with
graphical IS50 of 5.0 MPa and an average IS50 using the correction factor (equation 2) for
the 10 remaining points of 5.04 MPa. The reported Is50 for sample MIN-SAN-0001 is
5.04 MPa.
170
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure B3: Correlation plot of point load strength index (MPa) vs. apatite (%) where (a)
represent samples from GHN, (b) represent samples from all other rock piles and (c)
represent samples from drill cores, colluvium and the debris flow.
171
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure B4: Correlation plot of slake durability index (%) vs. apatite (%) where (a)
represent samples from GHN, (b) represent samples from all other rock piles and (c)
represent samples from drill cores, colluvium and the debris flow.
172
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure B5: Correlation plot of point load strength index (MPa) vs. chlorite (%) where (a)
represent samples from GHN, (b) represent samples from all other rock piles and (c)
represent samples from drill cores, colluvium and the debris flow.
173
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure B6: Correlation plot of slake durability index (%) vs. chlorite (%) where (a)
represent samples from GHN, (b) represent samples from all other rock piles and (c)
represent samples from drill cores, colluvium and the debris flow.
174
(b)
(a)
(c)
Figure B7: Correlation plot of point load strength index (MPa) vs. illite (%) where (a)
represent samples from GHN, (b) represent samples from all other rock piles and (c)
represent samples from drill cores, colluvium and the debris flow.
175
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure B8: Correlation plot of slake durability index (%) vs. illite (%) where (a)
represent samples from GHN, (b) represent samples from all other rock piles and (c)
represent samples from drill cores, colluvium and the debris flow.
176
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure B9: Correlation plot of point load strength index (MPa) vs. kaolinite (%) where
(a) represent samples from GHN, (b) represent samples from all other rock piles and (c)
represent samples from drill cores, colluvium and the debris flow.
177
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure B10: Correlation plot of slake durability index (%) vs. kaolinite (%) where (a)
represent samples from GHN, (b) represent samples from all other rock piles and (c)
represent samples from drill cores, colluvium and the debris flow.
178
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure B11: Correlation plot of point load strength index (MPa) vs. K Feldspar (%)
where (a) represent samples from GHN, (b) represent samples from all other rock piles
and (c) represent samples from drill cores, colluvium and the debris flow.
179
(b)
(a)
(c)
Figure B12: Correlation plot of slake durability index (%) vs. K Feldsppar (%) where (a)
represent samples from GHN, (b) represent samples from all other rock piles and (c)
represent samples from drill cores, colluvium and the debris flow.
180
(b)
(a)
(c)
Figure B13: Correlation plot of point load strength index (MPa) vs. plagioclase (%)
where (a) represent samples from GHN, (b) represent samples from all other rock piles
and (c) represent samples from drill cores, colluvium and the debris flow.
181
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure B14: Correlation plot of slake durability index (%) vs. plagioclase (%) where (a)
represent samples from GHN, (b) represent samples from all other rock piles and (c)
represent samples from drill cores, colluvium and the debris flow.
182
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure B15: Correlation plot of point load strength index (MPa) vs. quartz (%) where (a)
represent samples from GHN, (b) represent samples from all other rock piles and (c)
represent samples from drill cores, colluvium and the debris flow.
183
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure B16: Correlation plot of slake durability index (%) vs. quartz (%) where (a)
represent samples from GHN, (b) represent samples from all other rock piles and (c)
represent samples from drill cores, colluvium and the debris flow.
184
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure B17: Correlation plot of point load strength index (MPa) vs. smectite (%) where
(a) represent samples from GHN, (b) represent samples from all other rock piles and (c)
represent samples from drill cores, colluvium and the debris flow.
185
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure B18: Correlation plot of slake durability index (%) vs. smectite (%) where (a)
represent samples from GHN, (b) represent samples from all other rock piles and (c)
represent samples from drill cores, colluvium and the debris flow.
186
(b)
(a)
(c)
Figure B19: Correlation plot of point load strength index (MPa) vs. epidote (%) where (a)
represent samples from GHN, (b) represent samples from all other rock piles and (c)
represent samples from drill cores and scars.
187
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure B20: Correlation plot of slake durability index (%) vs. epidote (%) where (a)
represent samples from GHN, (b) represent samples from all other rock piles and (c)
represent samples from drill cores, colluvium and the debris flow.
188
(a)
(b)
Figure B21: Correlation plot of point load strength index (MPa) and slake durability
index (%) vs. andesite (%) where (a) represent samples from GHN and (b) represent
samples from drill cores, colluvium and the debris flow.
(a)
(b)
Figure B22: Correlation plot of point load strength index (MPa) vs. amalia (%) where (a)
represent samples from GHN and (b) represent samples from drill cores, colluvium and
the debris flow.
189
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure B23: Correlation plot of slake durability index (%) and point load strength index
(MPa) vs. argillic (%) where (a) represent samples from GHN, (b) represent samples
from drill cores, colluvium and the debris flow (c) represent samples from GHN.
190
(a)
(b)
Figure B24: Correlation plot of slake durability (%) (a) and point load strength index
(MPa) (b) vs. propylitic (%) of GHN samples.
191
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure B25: Correlation plot of slake durability (%) and point load strength index (MPa)
vs. QSP (%) where (a) represent samples from GHN, (b) represent samples from all drill
cores, colluviums and debris flow and (c) represent point load strength indices for
samples from GHN.
192
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure B26: Correlation plot of slake durability index (%) vs. andesite (%) where (a)
represent samples from GHN, (b) represent samples from all other rock piles and (c)
represent samples from drill cores, colluvium and the debris flow.
193
8
y = 0.2x - 19.5
R² = 0.3
Point Load Strength Index (MPa)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
80
85
90
95
100
Slake Durability Index %
Figure B27: Correlation plot of slake durability index (%) vs. point load strength index
(MPa) of the pit unweathered samples.
9
y = 0.5x - 45.7
R² = 0.3
8
Point Load Strength Index (MPa)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
Slake Durability Index %
Figure B28: Correlation plot of slake durability index (%) vs. point load strength index
(MPa) of the Goat Hill North rock pile samples.
194
4
y = 0.03x - 0.85
R² = 0.01
Point Load Strength Index (MPa)
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
90
92
94
96
98
100
Slake Durability Index %
Figure B29: Correlation plot of slake durability index (%) vs. point load strength index
(MPa) of the Sugar Shack South rock pile samples.
7
y = 0.2x - 15.3
R² = 0.4
Point Load Strength Index (MPa)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
80
85
90
95
100
Slake Durability Index %
Figure B30: Correlation plot of slake durability index (%) vs. point load strength index
(MPa) of the Sugar Shack South rock pile samples.
195
7
y = 0.7x - 62.2
R² = 0.1
Point Load Strength Index (Mpa)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
98
98.5
99
99.5
100
Slake Durability Index %
Figure B31: Correlation plot of slake durability index (%) vs. point load strength index
(MPa) of the debris flows samples.
196
APPENIDX C. SUMMARY COMPARISM STATISTICS OF THE STRENGTH
and DURABILITYCLASSIFICATION FOR QUESTA MATERIALS.
1. HYPOTHESIS NUMBER 1
Is there a difference in slake durability indices between the unweathered samples from
drill core, the GHN rock pile and the other rock riles combined?
1.2 TECHNICAL APPROACH
Histograms are shown in Fig. C1 Results are below. The Mann-Whitney Rank Sum test
([email protected]) was used for the test. If the H statistic is small, the average ranks observed
for the groups are approximately the same. If the H statistic is large, the variability
among the average ranks is larger than expected from random sampling, i.e. the samples
are from different populations. The P value is the probability of being wrong.
1.3 RESULTS
Table C1: Comparisons of slake durability indices of unweathered drill core samples
with GHN rock pile samples and other rock pile samples excluding GHN where the t-test
could not be applied because the normality test failed (i.e. distribution of data is not
normal) and Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Test was used.
Comparison of Units
N
Median
(%)
25%
75%
Unweathered (Drill core)
30
95.5
94.1
97.4
GHN Rock pile
76
96.8
95.7
97.7
Unweathered (Drill core)
30
95.5
94.1
97.4
Other Rock plies (SSS,SSW,MID,SPR)
52
97.6
96.6
98.7
T
P
Conclusion
1311.5
0.127
Statistically
similar
935
0.003
Statistically
different
1.4 CONCLUSIONS:
The difference in the median values between the two groups (Unweathered drill core and
GHN rock pile samples) is not great enough to exclude the possibility that the difference
is due to random sampling variability; there is not a statistically significant difference (P
= 0.127)
197
The difference in the median values between the two groups (Unweathered drill core and
other rock piles samples) is greater than would be expected by chance; there is a
statistically significant difference (P = 0.003)
2. HYPOTHESIS NUMBER 2
Is there a difference in point load strength indices between the unweathered samples from
drill core, the GHN rock pile and the other rock piles combined?
2.2 TECHNICAL APPROACH
Histograms are shown in Fig. C2. Results are below. The t-test ([email protected]) was used
for the test.
2.3 RESULTS
Table C2: Comparisons of point load strength of unweathered drill core samples with
GHN rock pile samples and other rock pile samples excluding GHN where the t-test
passed (i.e. distribution of data are normal).
Comparison of Units
N
Mean (MPa)
Std. Deviation
SEM
Conclusion
Unweathered (Drill core)
30
3.6
1.6
0.3
Statistically similar
GHN Rock pile
31
4.2
1.8
0.3
Unweathered (Drill core)
30
3.6
1.6
0.3
Other Rock plies (SSS,SSW,MID,SPR)
38
3.3
1.4
0.3
Statistically similar
2.4 CONCLUSIONS:
The difference in the mean values of the two groups (Unweathered and GHN rock piles)
is not great enough to reject the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling
variability. There is not a statistically significant difference between the input groups (P =
0.157).
The difference in the mean values of the two groups (Unweathered and other rock piles)
is not great enough to reject the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling
198
variability. There is not a statistically significant difference between the input groups (P =
0.569).
Colluvium
Rubble Zone
3.0
2.0
Counts
Counts
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
70
80
90
0.0
100
70
80
90
100
Slake Duarability Index %
Slake Durability Index %
Unit O
Unit U
5
2.0
Counts
Counts
4
1.0
3
2
1
0.0
70
75
80
85
90
95
0
100
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Slake Durability Index %
Slake Durability Index %
Unit J
Unit N
2.0
2.0
Counts
Counts
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.0
70
80
90
100
Slake Durability Index %
70
80
90
Slake Durability Index %
199
0.0
100
Unit C-I
Unstable GHN
1.0
6
5
Counts
Counts
4
3
2
1
0.0
70
80
90
0
100
70
80
Slake Durability Index %
90
Goat Hill North
Spring Gulch
35
8
30
7
6
25
5
20
Counts
Counts
100
Slake Durability Index %
15
4
3
10
2
5
0
1
70
80
90
0
100
70
Slake Durability Index %
Sugar Shack South
6
5
Counts
8
Counts
100
7
10
6
4
4
3
2
2
1
70
80
90
100
Slake Durability Index %
0
70
80
90
Slake Durability Index %
200
90
Sugar Shack West
12
0
80
Slake Durability Index %
100
Debris Flows
Drill Core (Unweathered)
7
10
6
8
4
Counts
Counts
5
3
6
4
2
2
1
0
70
80
90
0
70
Slake Durability Index %
Figure C1: slake durability histogram plots for the various locations.
201
80
90
Slake Durability Index %
100
Unit K
Unit O
1.0
Counts
Counts
1.0
0.0
0
2
4
6
8
0.0
10
0
2
Point Load Strength Index (MPa)
8
10
1.0
Counts
Counts
6
Unit N
Unit J
2.0
1.0
0.0
4
Point Load Strength Index (MPa)
0
2
4
6
8
10
0.0
0
2
4
6
8
10
Point Load Strength Index (MPa)
Point Load Strength Index (MPa)
Spring Gulch
Goat Hill North
2.0
8
7
6
Counts
Counts
5
4
1.0
3
2
1
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
0
2
4
6
Point Load Strength Index (MPa)
Point Load Strength Index (MPa)
202
0.0
8
10
Sugar Shack West
Sugar Shack South
5
3.0
4
Counts
Counts
2.0
3
2
1.0
1
0.0
0
2
4
6
8
0
10
0
2
4
6
8
10
Point Load Strength Index (MPa)
Point Load Strength Index (MPa)
All Rock Piles
Debris Flow
14
3.0
12
10
Counts
Counts
2.0
8
6
1.0
4
2
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
0.0
0
2
Point Load Strength Index (MPa)
4
6
8
10
Point Load Strength Index (MPa)
Drill Core (Unweathered)
5
Alteration Scars
2.0
Counts
Counts
4
1.0
3
2
1
0.0
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
0
2
4
Figure C2: Point load strength histogram plot for the various locations.
203
6
Point Load Strength Index (MPa)
Point Load Strength Index (MPa)
8
10
Download