Geological and Geotechnical Report for Crusher Area

OKSUT GOLD PROJECT
GEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

REPORT FOR CRUSHER AREA
Document Number: TD02-AKA-601-C-R-0001
AKADEM GEOLOGICAL GEOTECHNICAL SURVEY PROJECT ENG. CONSULTING

CONSTRUCTION IND. TRADE LTD. CO.
0 26.01.2017 IssueForConstruction
M.A.TEMUR O.O.TFENKC O.O.TFENKC
Rev Date ReasonforIssue Preparedby Checkedby Approvedby
GEOLOGICALANDGEOTECHNICALINVESTIGATIONREPORTFORCRUSHERAREA
TD02AKA601CR0001
Executive Summary
This report presents the geological and geotechnical investigation of the Crusher
area at kst gold mine Project site. Akademi Consultancys scope includes, site
investigation works such as borehole drilling, test pit excavations, in-situ permeability
tests, thermal resistivity tests, soil resistivity tests; geotechnical laboratory works for
soil and rock samples; providing geological and geotechnical conditions and design
parameters with recommendations for the foundation design.
Within the scope of the work, a total of three borehole drillings were performed with
soil and rock sampling in the crusher area. Main geological formations were
determined as clayey collivium soil, andesite and agglomerate.
The samples obtained by drillings have been transferred to the laboratory and
geotechnical tests such as water content, natural unit weight, dry unit weight,
atterberg limits, sieve analysis, triaxial compressive strength test (UU), direct shear
test (UU) for soils and natural unit weight and uniaxial compressive strength (UCS)
test for rocks have been performed.
By using the laboratory results; bearing capacity, settlement and liquefaction

potential have been determined. According to calculations, brut bearing capacity
(qbrut) values have been found 132.49 kPa for Primary crusher building, 312.00 kPa
for Secondary crusher building. Consolidation based settlement has been found 6.56
cm for Primary crusher building. Settlement is not expected for secondary crusher
building due to rock conditions.
Since liquefaction conditions are not fulfilled, liquefaction is not expected in the
crusher building area.
For soil formations; The FS values were found 3.6 and 2.7 for static and dynamic
conditions respectively for right hand side slope with recommended slope ratio 3H 1V
for right hand slope.
For the left hand side slope the FS values were found 4.3 and 3.3 for static and
dynamic conditions respectively and the recommended slope ratio for clayey
collivium is 2H 1V.
TD02AKA601CR0001
For rock formations; The FS values were found 21.9 and 18.4 for static and dynamic
conditions respectively for right hand side slope with recommended mixed slope ratio
1H 2V and 1H 1V.
TD02AKA601CR0001
TABLE OFCONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
1.1. Project Description And Background..................................................................................1
1.2. Previous Site Works..............................................................................................................1
1.3. Scope Of The Work...............................................................................................................1
1.4. Location And Accessibility....................................................................................................2
1.5. Climate....................................................................................................................................3
1.6. References.............................................................................................................................4
2. GEOLOGY............................................................................................. 6
2.1. General Geology....................................................................................................................6
2.2. Local Geology and Site Observations...............................................................................12
2.3. Structural Geology and Seismicity....................................................................................15
3. 2016 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION PROGRAM................... 19
3.1. Methodology........................................................................................................................19
3.2. Field Studies.........................................................................................................................19
3.2.1. Drillings.........................................................................................................................19
3.2.2. Test Pits........................................................................................................................24
3.3. Hydrogeology.......................................................................................................................25
3.3.1. Chemical Compounds of the Groundwater..............................................................25
3.4. Rock Mass Classifications...................................................................................................26
3.4.1. Rock Mass Rating (RMR) of the Rocks.....................................................................26
3.4.2. Geological Strength Index (GSI) of the Rocks........................................................27
3.5. Laboratory Studies..............................................................................................................28
3.6. Geophysical Investigations................................................................................................33
3.6.1. Electrical Resistivity Tests..........................................................................................33
3.6.2. Thermal Resistivity Tests...........................................................................................37
4. GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSES ............................................................... 40
4.1. Bearing Capacity.....................................................................................................................40
4.2. Settlement................................................................................................................................42
4.3. Foundation and Drainage Recommendations.....................................................................42
4.4. Liquefaction Potential.............................................................................................................43
4.5. Excavations and Slope Stability Analysis.............................................................................44
4.6. Potential Sources for Backfill Materials................................................................................54
5. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................. 56
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................. 60
7. APPENDICES ..................................................................................... 61
TD02AKA601CR0001
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1. Location of the investigation area ...................................................... 2
Figure 1.2. Summary of Average Monthly and Annual Precipitation........................ 4
Figure 2.1. Major sutures of Turkey (slightly modified from kst 2015)................ 6
Figure 2.2. Geological map of investigation area (modified from MTA 1 / 100 000
scaled L-35 geological map, 2009)........................................................................ 7
Figure 2.3. Generalised stratigraphic section of the investigation area (modified
from post Cretaceous stratigraphic section. MTA L-35 Kayseri map section, 2009) .... 9
Figure 2.4. Andesite intact rock samples ........................................................... 10
Figure 2.5. Tuff intact rock samples .................................................................. 11
Figure 2.6. Volcanic agglomerate intact rock sample .......................................... 11
Figure 2.7. Top soil and clay zones core samples (Borehole no: CR-BH-04, Depth:
0,00 8,80 m).................................................................................................. 12
Figure 2.8. Photo locations............................................................................... 13
Figure 2.9. Clayey collivium outcrop zone in the crusher area (North East South
West View, photo 1) .......................................................................................... 14
Figure 2.10. Clayey collivium boundary on the outcrop in the crusher area (North
West South East View, photo 2) ...................................................................... 14
Figure 2.11. Corebox photo of CR-BH-01 (9,00 m 14,00 m) ............................. 15
Figure 2.12. Soil-rock formations boundary plot................................................. 16
Figure 2.13. Cross section locations .................................................................. 17
Figure 2.14. Longitudinal geological cross section (1H 2V scaled)........................ 13
Figure 2.15. Latitudinal geological cross section (1H 2V scaled) .......................... 14
Figure 2.16. The fault zones near investigation area (modified from MTA and
Golder, 2014) ................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2.17. AFAD Seismicity map of the Investigation area ............................... 17
Figure 2.18. USGS Seismicity map of the Investigation area (Modified from Oksut,
2014) ............................................................................................................... 18
Figure 3.1. Borehole locations ......................................................................... 20
Figure 3.2. Discontinuity specification charts .................................................... 22
Figure 3.3. Locations of the test pits performed by Golder ................................. 24
Figure 3.4. Rock mass strength parameters obtained by using Hoek-Diederichs
2006 ................................................................................................................ 28
Figure 3.5. Electrical resistivity measurement points .......................................... 34
Figure 3.6. CR_ER-1 point 1 dimesional plot ..................................................... 35
Figure 3.7. CR_ER-2 point 1 dimesional plot ..................................................... 35
Figure 3.8. CR_ERT-1 line 2 dimensional plot.................................................... 35
Figure 3.9. CR_ERT-2 line 2 dimensional plot.................................................... 36
Figure 3.10. CR_ERT-3 line 2 dimensional plot ................................................. 36
Figure 3.11. 3 dimensional plot ....................................................................... 36
Figure 3.12. 3 dimensional plot 2 .................................................................... 37
Figure 3.13. Thermal resistivity test location ..................................................... 38
Figure 4.1. Turkey Frost Penetration Depth Map (General Directorate of Highways,
2006) ............................................................................................................... 43
Figure 4.2. Excavation zone and geological setting (NW SE direction) ............... 46
Figure 4.3. Excavation zone and geological setting (SW NE direction) ............... 46
Figure 4.4. Mass failure analysis in static conditions for right hand side slopes ..... 47
Figure 4.5. Mass failure analysis in dynamic conditions for right hand side slopes . 48
TD02AKA601CR0001
Figure 4.6. Mass failure analysis in static conditions for left hand side slopes ....... 49
Figure 4.7. Mass failure analysis in static dynamic for left hand side slopes ......... 50
Figure 4.8. RMR Basic chart (Bieniawski, 1976).................................................. 51
Figure 4.9. SMR Adjusting components (F1, F2, F3, F4) (Romana, 1985) ............... 52
Figure 4.10. SMR classes (Romana, 1985) ........................................................ 52
Figure 4.11. Support Recommendations regarding to SMR classes (Romana, 1985)
....................................................................................................................... 53
TD02AKA601CR0001
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1.1. Reference Project Documents ............................................................. 4

Table 1.2. Standards & Suggested Methods ......................................................... 5
Table 3.1. Borehole coordinates........................................................................ 19
Table 3.2. Standart penetration test values........................................................ 21
Table 3.3. Standart penetration test graphs by depth ......................................... 21
Table 3.4. Summary of geotechnical data .......................................................... 23
Table 3.5. List of the test pit locations excavated by Golder ................................ 24
Table 3.6. Groundwater depths ........................................................................ 25
Table 3.7. RMRbasic classification of the andesites ............................................. 26
Table 3.8. Rock mass properties ....................................................................... 28
Table 3.9. Laboratory test results for soil samples .............................................. 30
Table 3.10. Laboratory test results for rock samples........................................... 31
Table 3.11. Laboratory test results for test pit samples....................................... 32
Table 3.12. Electrical Resistivity Mesurement line coordinates ............................. 33
Table 3.13. Thermal Resistivity Mesurement Summary ....................................... 39
TD02AKA601CR0001
1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the geological and geotechnical investigations prepared by

Akademi Geological Geotechnical Coonsulting for the crusher area at the proposed
kst Mine for kst Madencilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.. (OMAS), a Turkish subsidiary
of Centerra Gold Inc. (Centerra).
1.1. Project Description And Background
This report provides a description of the geotechnical field investigations and

presents the results of the field data for the crusher area. Field datas were collected
between October 10 and 13, 2016, and the laboratory tests were carried out in
October and November 2016.
1.2. Previous Site Works
As a geotechnical investigation, couple of works have been done in the previous

years. The ones have been used as contributory reports are given below;
Geotechnical Pit Slope Investigation - Field Data Report (by Golder Associates Ltd.
September 2014), Freshwater Supply Pipeline Feasibility Design Report (by Golder
Associates Ltd. March 2015), Heap Leach Facility Design Report (by Golder
Associates Ltd. February 2015), Additional Low Permeability Soil Borrow
Investigations (by Golder Associates Ltd. December 2016), Feasibility Study
Preliminary Release Report (by Centerra Gold July 2015).
Several geotechnical investigations such as borehole drilling, pit excavations,

geotechnical laboratory tests, chemical tests for groundwater have been performed
as part of those works.
1.3. Scope Of The Work
Scope of this report includes to present; site investigation works such as borehole
drilling, test pit excavations, in-situ permeability tests, thermal resistivity tests, soil
resistivity tests; geotechnical laboratory works for soil and rock samples; providing
geological and geotechnical conditions and design parameters with
TD02AKA601CR0001
recommendations for the foundation design.
1.4. Location And Accessibility
kst Mine is located in south-central Turkey, 300 kilometers to the southeast of the
capital city of Ankara and 48 kilometers directly south of the city of Kayseri (Figure
1.1). The nearest administrative centre is at Develi located approximately 10 km
north of the project area. Ankara and Kayseri have international airports and are
serviced by international and domestic airlines.
Figure 1.1. Location of the investigation area
TD02AKA601CR0001
1.5. Climate
In this section, climate informations provided from kst Mine Heap Leach Facility
Design Report by Golder Associates Ltd. February 2015.
The climate at the kst mine is continental with warm, dry summers and cold,
snowy winters with cool nights. Temperatures typically range from 10 to 31C in
summer and -7 to 6C in winter. Max and min temperature values were estimated
+39.8 to -29.4C respectively for the project site.
Climatic data used in the water balance model was developed based on analyses of
data recorded at the Develi weather station between 1973 and 2013. The Develi
precipitation data has been adjusted using a factor of 1.1 to account for the
elevation difference between Develi station (1,180m) and the HLF site (~1,800m).
This correction factor increases precipitation by 10% to bring the average annual
precipitation up to 410 mm. The Develi station climate data shows that the average
annual precipitation in that area is 373 mm. Looking at the other stations in Kayseri
province, the other closest station to the site (Yahyal Station) has an average annual
precipitation of 424 mm at an elevation of 1,260m. These data show that the
elevation itself is not a driving factor for the rainfall that an area gets. In general,
precipitation is relatively consistent over the Anatolian plateau area, with some local
differences presumably based on elevation and position relative to topographic
features. Precipitation increases greatly in the southern portion of the province in the
area where the land slopes down towards the Mediterranean basin and the area
surrounding the city of Adana. The Turkish Meteorological Services website shows
that average annual precipitation in the whole Kayseri province is about 400 mm
(http://www.mgm.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/yillik-toplam yagisverileri.aspx?m=kayseri). The
selected average annual precipitation for the site at 410 mm is still higher than the
whole provinces average annual precipitation and the average of the two closest
stations (Develi and Yahyal, 399mm). Based on this approach, Golder believes the
selected precipitation corrections are defensible and reasonable for this level of
study. Figure 1.2 provides a summary of the average monthly precipitation values
used in this study.
TD02AKA601CR0001
Figure 1.2. Summary of Average Monthly and Annual Precipitation
Golder suggests to use adjusted precipitation data from the Develi station to develop
storm event intensities for use in design of surface water management features.
Based on the design criteria, the 25-year, 24-hour storm must be used for design of
temporary features. The 100-year, 24-hour storm must be used for design of
channels, culverts, and structures which will exist long-term. The precipitation
amounts corresponding to the 25-year, 24-hour and 100-year, 24-hour events were
calculated to be 49.3 mm and 59.1mm, respectively.
1.6. References
Reference Project documents are given Table 1.1, Standards and suggested methods
are given Table 1.2.
Table 1.1. Reference Project Documents

Document Name Prepared By Preparation Date
kst Gold Project Feasibility Study Centerra Gold Inc. July 2015
Geotechnical Pit Slope Investigation - Field Data
Golder Associates Ltd. September 2014
Report
kst Mine Heap Leach Facility Design Report Golder Associates Ltd. February 2015
Freshwater Supply Pipeline Feasibility Design Report Golder Associates Ltd. March 2015
Additional Low Permeability Soil Borrow Investigations
Golder Associates Ltd. December 2016
Within Project Boundary / Mine License
TD02AKA601CR0001
Table 1.2. Standards & Suggested Methods

Document No Document Name
TS EN 1097-6 Turkish Standards, Tests for mechanical and physical properties of aggregates
Turkish Standards, Methods of Testing Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes in
TS 1900-1, TS 1900-2
the Laboratory
Turkish Standards, Geotechnical investigation and testing - Laboratory testing

TS EN 17892-1
of soil
TS 2028 Turkish Standards, Determination of Unconfined Compressive Strength of Rocks
TS 699 Turkish Standards, Methods of Testing for Natural Building Stones
Turkish Standards, Determination Of Elastic Module And Poissons Ratio Of

TS 2030
Rocks In Uniaxial Compression
Standard Test Method for Relative Density (Specific Gravity) and Absorption of
ASTM C127
Coarse Aggregate
Standard Test Method for Relative Density (Specific Gravity) and Absorption of
ASTM C128
Fine Aggregate
Standard Test Method for Resistance to Degradation of Small-Size Coarse

ASTM C131
Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine
Standard Test Method for Soundness of Aggregates by Use of Sodium Sulfate

ASTM C88
or Magnesium Sulfate
Standard Test Method for Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Porous

ASTM D 5856
Material Using a Rigid-Wall, Compaction-Mold Permeameter
Rock characterization, testing and monitoring. International Society for Rock

ISRM 1981
Mechanics Suggested Methods
KGM 2013 General Directorate of Highways Technical Code
TD02AKA601CR0001
2. GEOLOGY
2.1. General Geology
Investigation area is located Central Anatolia Volcanic Province (CAVP) where middle
miocene-pliocene magmatic activities has been taken place. The major geological
formation is formed by basaltic-andesitic rocks, pyroclastic rocks and lava flows in
that province. Magmatic activity and related ore forming processes within the CAVP
are the result of the closing of the Tethyan Ocean during collision of the north-
moving Arabian Plate and Eurasian Plate which began in the Late Cretaceous (kst,
2013).
The collision and consequent subduction between the Afro-Arabian and Eurasian
Plates, resulted in the formation of three major tectonic units separated by suture
zones in Turkey: the Pontide Orogenic Belt to the north, the Anatolide-Tauride
Platform in the middle, and the Arabian Platform in the southeast (Ketin, 1966)
(Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1. Major sutures of Turkey (slightly modified from kst 2015)
Investigation area is placed in 1 / 100 000 scaled Kayseri L-35 geological map of
MTA (General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration of Turkey). According
TD02AKA601CR0001
to that map, the general geological formation belongs Tertiary Volcanics Group and
the major formations are Kadmasattepe Volcanics, Sarca Volcanics and Develi
Volcanics respectively (Figure 2.2). Sarca Volcanics is overlayed by Kadmasattepe
whereas it unconformably overlays Develi Volcanics. The generalised stratigraphic
section (modified from post Cretaceous stratigraphic section, MTA 2009) is given
Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.2. Geological map of investigation area (modified from MTA 1 / 100 000
scaled L-35 geological map, 2009)
Kadmasattepe Volcanics: The formation that composed of andesitic lavas and

pyroclastics, was entitled by Dnmez et al. (2003). Andesites are grey and black
colored; flow and cooling structured; large plagioclase contented and yellow color
weathered. Sometimes aglomerate layers can be found.
Kadmasattepe Volcanics are conformably overlayed by Kzlkaya ignimbrites.
TD02AKA601CR0001
The formations age was found between 5.6-5.3 million years with K/Ar method by
Dnmez et. al (2003). Therefore geological age is determined as late miocene.
Kadmasattepe Volcanics can be equalized with Pasquare 1968s Kadmasattepe
Andesite.
Sarca Volcanics Member: The formation that composed of black colored basalts,
basaltic andesites and pyroexene combined pyroclastics, was entitled by Dnmez et
al. (2003). The volcanics that locally observed in rgp Formation was named Sarca
Volcanics member as well.
This volcanic squence is formed by thin lava layers; grey, red, brown basalt and
basaltic block composition; grey and yellowish tuff matrix content; homogenneous
grain size distributed basalts. Sometimes spheroidal jointing can be observed.
Sarca Volcanics Member is partly observed as interlayered with rgp Formation

deposits. It uncomformably overlays Kadmasattepe Volcanics and Develi Volcanics.
The formations age was found between 6.4-7.9 million years with K/Ar method by
Dnmez et. al (2003). Therefore geological age is determined as late miocene. Sarca
Volcanics can be equalized with Pasquare 1968s Damsa Basalt.
Develi Volcanics: White, grey, brown, red colored and highly altered Develi
Volcanics was entitled by Dnmez et al. (2003).
This volcanic squence is formed by White, yellow, red color massive structure. It
includes pumice, vitreous matrix, plagioclase sticks with andesine and biotite
crystalised tuff. Silifications are commonly observed in tuffs. Develi Volcanics are
intersected by andesitic dykes.
Develi Volcanics are uncomformably overlayed by Sarca Volcanics. The formations

age was found between 13.3-13.6 million years with K/Ar method by Dnmez et. al
(2003). Therefore geological age is determined as middle miocene. Develi Volcanics
can be equalized with Pasquare 1968s Develi Tuff.
TD02AKA601CR0001

Figure 2.3. Generalised stratigraphic section of the investigation area (modified
from post Cretaceous stratigraphic section. MTA L-35 Kayseri map section, 2009)
Rock types encountered in the investigation area can be seperated 3 individual units
such as andesites, tuffs and agglomerates. These volcanic units are locally overlayed
by clay. The major lithological intact samples are given Figure 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7.
TD02AKA601CR0001
Figure 2.4. Andesite intact rock samples
10
TD02AKA601CR0001
Figure 2.5. Tuff intact rock samples

Figure 2.6. Volcanic agglomerate intact rock sample
11
TD02AKA601CR0001

Figure 2.7. Top soil and clay zones core samples (Borehole no: CR-BH-04, Depth:
0,00 8,80 m)
2.2. Local Geology and Site Observations
According to geological surveying work in the crusher area, 3 major geological units
such as clay, andesite and volcanic agglomerate have been encountered. Clay zone
tickness locally differs from 4,00 m to 10,00 m and they formed by argilic weathering
of andesites. General view of the crusher area and clay zones are given Figure 2.9
and 2.10.
12
TD02AKA601CR0001
Figure 2.8. Photo locations
13
TD02AKA601CR0001
Figure 2.9. Clayey collivium outcrop zone in the crusher area (North East South
West View, photo 1)
Figure 2.10. Clayey collivium boundary on the outcrop in the crusher area (North
West South East View, photo 2)
Andesites are light grey colored. Some joints, vugs and small cavities can be
observed locally. They generally slightly-moderateley weathered and have strong
strength. Representative corebox photo is given figure 2.11.
14
TD02AKA601CR0001
Figure 2.11. Corebox photo of CR-BH-01 (9,00 m 14,00 m)
Due to the topographical conditions and environmental regulations, accessing to the

primary crushing area was not possible. Therefore, drilling operations could not be
performed in the primary crusher building area. As a result, geological model in the
crusher area was generated according to borehole drillings and the site observations.
Soil-rock formations boundary plot is given Figure in 2.12. Longitudinal and
latitudinal geological cross section locations are given Figure 2.13 and the geological
cross sections are give Figure 2.14-2.15 respectively.
15
TD02AKA601CR0001
Figure 2.12. Soil-rock formations boundary plot
16
TD02AKA601CR0001
Figure 2.13. Cross section locations
17
TD02AKA601CR0001
Figure 2.14. Longitudinal geological cross section (1H 2V scaled)
13
TD02AKA601CR0001
Figure 2.15. Latitudinal geological cross section (1H 2V scaled)
14
TD02AKA601CR0001
2.3. Structural Geology and Seismicity
The investigation area is located in the segment of the Tethyan Metallogenic Belt
formed due to the convergence between the Afro-Arabian and Eurasian Plates, i.e.,
as a result of the closure of the Tethyan Ocean during the Alpine-Himalayan orogeny
in the Late Cretaceous/Early Tertiary.
The major fault line near the investigation area is Central Anatolian Fault Zone
(CAFZ). The three minor fault lines that has a seismicity potential have been formed
as a result of CAFZ. They are; Ecemi, Erciyes and Sarz fault zones. Their distences
are 25 km, 26 km and 17 km respectively (Figure 2.15.).
InvestigationArea
Figure 2.16. The fault zones near investigation area (modified from MTA and
Golder, 2014)
15
TD02AKA601CR0001
Ecemi fault zone is considered as a most important fault zone near the investigation
area. It forms active and subjected to left lateral strike slip displacement. The fault
zone is extensional in tectonic movement, providing transfer between regional
normal faults located at the northern and the southern termination zones (Dhont et
al, 1998).
The Prime Ministry Disaster & Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD) has
developed a Seismic Hazard Map for Turkey and Kayseri (Figure 2.17). The AFAD
categorize peak ground acceleration (PGA) between 2.0 and 3.0 m/sec2, or 0.2 to
0.3g, for the 475-year return period, seismic event at the investigation area.
According to AFADs seismecity map, investigation area is placed 3rd degree
seismecity zone. The estimated PGA for the 2,475-year return period is estimated at
0.36-0.37g as shown on the USGS Seismic Hazard Map (2003) as presented in Figure
2.18.
16
TD02AKA601CR0001
InvestigationArea
1stdegreeseismicityzone:0.4gPGA
2nddegreeseismicityzone:0.3gPGA
.:
3rddegreeseismicityzone:0.2gPGA
4thdegreeseismicityzone:0.1gPGA
Figure 2.17. AFAD Seismicity map of the Investigation area
17
TD02AKA601CR0001
Figure 2.18. USGS Seismicity map of the Investigation area (Modified from Oksut,
2014)
18
TD02AKA601CR0001
3. 2016 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION PROGRAM

3.1. Methodology
In order to assess geological and geotechnical investigation of the area, firstly

available documents, maps, and other geological data were gathered. Then,
geological studies were performed in the field. 3 boreholes were drilled and some
laboratory tests were conducted. The results of the laboratory tests were processed
to obtain the geotechnical specifications such as bearing capacity, settlement ratio
and liquefaction potential.
3.2. Field Studies

3.2.1. Drillings
In the study area, three boreholes in the crusher area (CR-BH) were drilled. Borehole
locations are given Figure 3.1 and Table 3.1.
All boreholes were drilled by Boart Longyear LX-6 hydraulic drill machine with rotary
method. Drilling chemicals were not used during the drilling operations. Only water
was used as drilling fluids. All the drillings were performed with NQ diamond coring.
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was performed and undisturbed soil samples were
taken in soil stratas. Standart penetration test values and graphs are given Table 3.2
and 3.3 respectively.
Discontinuity specification charts used in the borehole logging, such as type,

aperture, alteration, infilling weathering, strength and roughness are given Figure
3.2. Summary of the data obtained from the borehole logs are presented in Table
3.4.
Table 3.1. Borehole coordinates

UTM 6 ED 50
Borehole No Depth (m) Elevation (m)
Y X
CR-BH-01 15.00 719809.10 4242298.00 1908.38
CR-BH-02 32,20 719761.67 4242336.40 1901
CR-BH-04 13.50 719748.93 4242278.71 1904.62
19
TD02AKA601CR0001
Figure 3.1. Borehole locations
20
TD02AKA601CR0001
Table 3.2. Standart penetration test values

Test
Borehole Depth(m) 015cm 1530cm 3045cm SPTN
Number
CR_BH01 SPT1 1.50 1.95 7 10 13 23
CR_BH01 SPT2 3.00 3.38 12 19 50/8 Refusal
CR_BH01 SPT3 6.00 6.45 6 6 10 16
CR_BH02 SPT1 1.50 1.95 9 11 22 33
CR_BH02 SPT2 3.00 3.45 8 12 21 33
CR_BH02 SPT3 4.50 4.95 7 13 21 34
CR_BH02 SPT4 6.00 6.45 7 6 8 14
CR_BH02 SPT5 7.50 7.95 7 10 15 25
CR_BH02 SPT6 9.00 9.23 25 50/8 Refusal
CR_BH02 SPT7 27.00 27.45 8 11 18 29
CR_BH04 SPT1 1.50 1.95 7 9 11 20
CR_BH04 SPT2 3.00 3.45 11 15 24 39
CR_BH04 SPT3 6.00 6.41 25 43 50/11 Refusal
Table 3.3. Standart penetration test graphs by depth

SPTN30
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
10
15
Depth(m)
20
25
30
35
CR_BH01 CR_BH02 CR_BH04
21
TD02AKA601CR0001
Figure 3.2. Discontinuity specification charts
22
TD02AKA601CR0001
Table 3.4. Summary of geotechnical data

Ground
Borehole Depth Dominant TCR (%)
SCR (%) RQD (%) Weathering Water
No (m) lithology
depth (m)
Max: 72
Clay with andesite
Min: 40
blocks
Max: 100 Average: 54 Max: 52
(0,00 6,50 m), 10.4
CR-BH-01 15.00 Min: 18 Min: 38 slightly to moderately
Average: 77.5 (low values at Average: 45
Andesite
0.00-6.00m)
(6,50 15,00 m)
Max: 67
Clay
Min: 11
(0,90 9,25 m),
Average: 27.4
Andesite Max: 100 Max: 37
Slightly weathered to
CR-BH-02 32,20 (9,25 27,90 m) Min: 52 Min: 0 8.6
(Low values at 1.50- residual soil
(30,00 -32,00 m) Average: 89.0 Average: 12.1
9.50m, 13.00-18.00m,
Agglometare
21.00-30.00)
(27,90-30,00 m)
Max: 80
Clay Min: 61
Max: 100 Max: 45
(0,20 6,50 m) Average: 68.3
CR-BH-04 13.50 Min: 40 Min: 27 slightly to moderately 1.3*
Andesite
Average: 83.0 Average: 38.6
(6,50 13,50 m) (Low values at 0.00-
6.00)
23
TD02AKA601CR0001
3.2.2. Test Pits
Within the scope of the geological geotechnical investigation work for Oksut Gold
Mine Project, Akademi did not perform any test pit excavations in the crusher area.
However, number of five test pits around the crusher area have been excavated by
Golder within scope of the Heap Leach Facility Design and Additional Low
Permeability Soil Borrow Investigations reports. List and the locations of the those
pits are given Table 3.5 and Figure 3.3 respectively and the test pits logs are
represented in Appendices.
Table 3.5. List of the test pit locations excavated by Golder

Test Pit Y X
TP-24 719761 4242330
CB-TP-18 719767 4242418
CB-TP-20 719886 4242279
CB-TP-25 719684 4242246
CB-TP-26 719834 4242357
Figure 3.3. Locations of the test pits performed by Golder
24
TD02AKA601CR0001
3.3. Hydrogeology
After the three borehole drilling were performed in the crusher area, groundwater
level measurements were taken. During the measurements, the water in the
boreholes was unloaded and afterwards the measurements was taken. The presence
of groundwater level is given Table 3.6.
Table 3.6. Groundwater depths

Ground
Ground Water
Borehole No Depth (m) Drilling Date Water
Measurement Date
depth (m)
CR-BH-01 15.00 06.10.2016 20.11.2016 10.4
CR-BH-02 32,20 05.10.2016 20.11.2016 8.6
CR-BH-04 13.50 13.10.2016 20.11.2016 1.3*
*Since CR-BH-04 groundwater level is not conform with the other boreholes, an
explanation is needed;
When the electrical resistivity test results are taken into account, no groundwater
anomaly has been observed at the depth of 1.30. Additionally, examining the
laboratory test results, it is inferred that the soil profile between the depth 0 - 6,00 m
is sandy and low plasticity clay. As a conclusion the ground water at CR-BH-04
borehole can be a presence of the local perched water in sandy lithology. Therefore
this groudwater level does not represent the actual groundwater level. The
groundwater level for CR-BH-04 is expected at the soil and rock formation contact
according to site observations. Idealised groundwater table is represented Figure
2.13 and 2.14.
3.3.1. Chemical Compounds of the Groundwater
Groundwater pH test results given in Feasibility Study Preliminary Release Report by

Centerra Gold (July 2015) have been reviewed for the groundwater compounds in
the investigation area. According to the test results of the closest point to the crusher
area (OKDS24), the avarage pH value of the invetigation area was determined as
25
TD02AKA601CR0001
7,79. When this test result is taken into account corrosion attack is not expected in
the investigation area. Therefore no chemical tests were found necessary by
Akademi and OMAS responsibles.
3.4. Rock Mass Classifications

3.4.1. Rock Mass Rating (RMR) of the Rocks
In order to get an idea of rock mass quality, RMR values of the rock masses in the
study area were determined according to Bieniawski (1989). In this system, uniaxial
compressive strength (UCS), rock quality designatin (RQD), spacing of
discontinuities, condition of discontinuities, groundwater conditions and orientations
of discontinuities are used for. Due to very poor description of the orientation of the
discontinuities parameter by drilling, this parameter is not considered, thus RMRbasic
using the remaining five parameters was calculated for the andesites where crusher
buildings foundation will be constructed on. The rating values are presented in Table
3.7. According to the classification, the rock mass in the study area belongs to poor
to fair rock.
Table 3.7. RMRbasic classification of the andesites
Parameter Obtained Value Rating Value
UCS (MPa) 31.2 58.5 4-7
RQD (%) 0 45 38
Spacing of
40 - 400 5 - 10
discontinuities (mm)
Very rough to slightly rough
Condition of
surfaces, unweathered to highly 10 - 20
discontinuities
weathered
Groundwater
Wet 7
conditions
Total Rating (RMRbasic) 29-52
Rock Mass Class Poor to fair rock
26
TD02AKA601CR0001
3.4.2. Geological Strength Index (GSI) of the Rocks
In order to assess the Geological Strength Index of the jointed rocks exposed in the
study area, the procedure recommended by Hoek (2007) was adopted. It uses
parameters such as structure and surface conditions. There exists very blocky
structures and fair to good surface conditions. Based on the field observations and
borehole drillings, GSI values was determined as 60.
For rock mass slope stability analyses, the shear strengths of the jointed rock masses
obtained from the GSI values should be used. The shear strength parameters of the
rock mass for the mass failure (Chapter 4.4) analyses were obtained by using RocLab
v.1 software (Rocscience 2011). Uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock as
31.2 MPa and mi value of 20 and MR value of 400 were used. As a disturbance factor
(D), it is taken as 0.7 due to the fact that good blasting/mechanical excavation
methods are expected to be used and seismic action is expected to loosen the rock
mass in the study area. The appropriate shear strength values of andesite for rock
mass failure analyses is given figure 3.4 and table 3.8.
27
TD02AKA601CR0001
Figure 3.4. Rock mass strength parameters obtained by using Hoek-Diederichs

2006
Table 3.8. Rock mass properties

Rock Mass Properties
GSI
Formation
value Uniaxial compressive
Deformation
c (MPa) phi (o) Tensile strength (MPa) modulus
strength (MPa)
(MPa)
Andesite 60 1.7 33 -0.043 1.69 2504
3.5. Laboratory Studies
The laboratory tests on the samples were performed by Akademi. Rock tests were
performed on each different lithological formations and soils.
The tests on soils include water content, natural unit weight, dry unit weight,
atterberg limits, sieve analysis, triaxial compressive strength test (UU), direct shear
test (UU). The tests on rocks include natural unit weight and uniaxial compressive
28
TD02AKA601CR0001
strength (UCS) test. The summary of the average tests results on the rocks are
provided in Table 3.10.
According to the laboratory tests, major soil class is formed by low plasticity clays
(CL). The average values of water content and natural unit weight for soil samples
are %30 and 18.49 kN/m3 respectively. Triaxial compressive strength tests (UU)
show that, cohesion values are between 59.51 kPa 77.03 kPa and internal friction
angles are between 7 - 11. Additionally, 12 internal friction angle and 49.76 kPa
cohesion value have been determined by direct shear test (UU) which performed on
undisturbed sample (UD-1) of CR-BH-1 borehole.
For the rocks, unit weight and UCS are found to be 23.39 kN/m3 and 29.7 MPa,
respectively. The UCS tests show that the strength of andesites are between 9.1 MPa
60.7 MPa which means moderately weak to strong rock strength. Volcanic
agglomerate sample in CR-BH-02 borehole has 7.8 MPa UCS. It is classified as weak
rock according to ISRM 1981.
Besides the laboratory test results on the samples obtained by borehole drillings, the
ones performed on Golders test pit samples (mentioned chapter 3.2.2) are given in
Table 3.11 and appendices. Results are used for potential borrow source for backfill
materials evaluation in chapter 4.5.
29
TD02AKA601CR0001
Table 3.9. Laboratory test results for soil samples

Direct Triaxial
Soil Shear Compressive
Sieve Analysis Atterberg Limits Oedometer Test
Natural Dry Classification Test Strength
Water (UU) (UU)
Borehole Sample Depth Unit Unit
Content
No No (m) Weight Weight
(%) No. 4 No. 200
(kN/m ) (kN/m )
3 3
(4.75 mm) (0.075 Swelling
mm) LL PL PI c c Swelling
(%) (%) (%)
USCS (kPa) (o) (kPa) (o) (%)
Pressure
Retained Passing (kPa)
(%) (%)
CR-BH-01 SPT 1,50-1,95 23.5 9.8 30.3 NP SM
" UD-1 2,50-3,00 27.5 18.50 14.51 2.6 63.0 37.7 21.5 16.2 CL 49.76 12 59.51 7 1.03 12.93
" SPT 4,50-4,95 Due to water content decrement during the transfer, the sample was not tested.
" SPT 6,00-6,45 20.9 5.3 52.8 38.9 19.4 19.5 CL
CR-BH-02 SPT-1 1,50-1,95 41.3 1.5 72.6 45.0 25.5 19.5 CL
" UD-1 2,50-3,00 24.6 18.24 14.64 2.6 63.2 33.4 18.3 15.1 CL 66.09 7 1.58 18.93
" SPT-2 3,00-3,45 30.3 2.6 63.2 33.9 18.6 15.3 CL
" SPT-3 4,50-4,95 32.4 2.7 63.3 37.4 19.4 18.0 CL
" UD-2 5,50-6,00 28.3 18.73 14.60 2.7 63.8 42.1 23.2 18.9 CL 77.03 11 0.68 7.69
" SPT-4 6,00-6,45 32.3 2.7 63.2 36.4 18.2 18.2 CL
" SPT-5 7,50-7,95 29.1 6.2 51.0 30.8 19.1 11.7 CL
" SPT-6 9,00-9,23 30.1 3.0 62.7 33.8 18.6 15.2 CL
" SPT-7 27,00-27,45 33.2 2.5 65.1 36.1 18.1 18.0 CL
CR-BH-04 SPT-1 1,50-1,95 30.2 6.6 52.5 32.8 18.7 14.1 CL
" UD-1 2,50-3,00 34.2 7.7 39.8 38.1 21.2 16.9 SC Crumbling Sample Not Tested
" SPT-2 3,00-3,45 32.9 3.5 61.2 36.0 18.6 17.4 CL
" SPT-3 6,00-6,41 30.4 8.8 33.6 31.4 16.2 15.2 SC
30
TD02AKA601CR0001
Table 3.10. Laboratory test results for rock samples

Sample Depth UCS
Natural Unit Weight
Borehole No
No (m) (kN/m ) 3
qu
(MPa)
CR-BH-01 CR 6,70-6,90 24.28 31.2
" CR 6,90-11,10* - Predicted between 31.2 MPa 58.5 MPa
" CR 11,10-11,40 26.02 58.5
" CR 11,40-15,00* - Predicted between 31.2 MPa 58.5 MPa
CR-BH-02 CR 13,80-14,00 26.17 60.7
" CR 14,00-21,00* - Predicted between 10.8 60.7 MPa
" CR 21,00-21,30 21.51 10.8
" CR 25,80-26,00 21.34 9.1
" CR 27,70-27,90 21.01 7.8
CR-BH-04 CR 8,00-8,20 23.94 31.0
" CR 10,00-10,20 26.50 72.5
*According to site observations and borehole loggings, the lithology at this interval was assumed as same as the previous one.
Therefore no test was found necessery to perform. UCS values were predicted by using the lowest UCS value of the the similar
lithological core run and the highest UCS value of the entire borehole.
31
TD02AKA601CR0001
Table 3.11. Laboratory test results for test pit samples

Soil
SieveAnalysis AtterbergLimits StandardProctor CBR*
Type
Water
TestPit Specific No.4 No.200 Optimum Max.Dry Permeability
Sample Depth(m) Content Swelling
No. Gravity (4.75mm) (0.075mm) LL PL PI Water Unit MoistCBR cm/s
(%) USCS Pressure
Retained Passing (%) (%) (%) content Weight Ratio(%)
(%)
(%) (%) (%) (kN/m3)
CBTP
BULK1 0.403.00 13.5 2.68 6.4 40.9 31.5 13.9 17.6 SC 9.2 16.70 12.3 0.91 4.53.E06
25
TP24 B1,2 2.754.50 17.8 6.0 42.8 28.2 18.7 9.5 SC
TP24 B2,3 1.702.75 41.4 1.6 53.1 53.6 36.8 16.8 MH
TP24 B5 2.754.50 48.2 2.2 49.5 53.8 36.6 17.1 SM
32
TD02AKA601CR0001
3.6. Geophysical Investigations
Within the scope of the geotechnical site investigation program, electrical resistivity
and thermal resistivity tests were performed in the crusher area.
3.6.1. Electrical Resistivity Tests
The electrical resistivity measurements were performed by using three different

measurement lines in accordence with wenner electrode array (Table 3.12). Those
three measurement lines include the zone where the specified electrical resistivity
measurement points are placed (Figure 3.4).
Table 3.12. Electrical Resistivity Mesurement line coordinates

UTM 6 ED 50
Line X Y
CR_ERT-1 (1) 4242293 719735.1
CR_ERT-1 (2) 4242350 719773.5
CR_ERT-2 (1) 4242273 719751.5
CR_ERT-2 (2) 4242333 719795.3
CR_ERT-3 (1) 4242247 719785.7
CR_ERT-3 (2) 4242294 719836.2
(1) Startingpointoftheline,(2)Endingpointoftheline
The measurements were performed in accordance with wenner electrode array and
the test results were plotted in 1,2 and 3 dimensional plots. CR_ER-1 and CR_ER-2
points measurements were plotted 1 dimensional (Fig 3.5 and 3.6). CR_ERT-1,
CR_ERT-2 and CR_ERT-3 lines measurements were plotted 2 dimensional (Fig 3.7,
3.8 and 3.9). As a result, all of the output plots were correlated and plotted as 3
dimensional (Figure 3.10 and 3.11).
33
TD02AKA601CR0001

Figure 3.5. Electrical resistivity measurement points
34
TD02AKA601CR0001
Figure 3.6. CR_ER-1 point 1 dimesional plot
Figure 3.7. CR_ER-2 point 1 dimesional plot
Figure 3.8. CR_ERT-1 line 2 dimensional plot
35
TD02AKA601CR0001
Figure 3.11. 3 dimensional plot
36
TD02AKA601CR0001
Figure 3.12. 3 dimensional plot 2
According to results of the electrical resistivity measurements; the 6th meter of

CR_ERT-1 line and the 24th meter of CR_ERT-3 line are determined as low resistivity
points. Therefore, those points could be more suitable for grounding applications.
3.6.2. Thermal Resistivity Tests
Thermal resistivity test has been performed for determining the thermal conductivity
of soil and soft rock in the investigation area and in the laboratory by using a
transient heat method. This test method is applicable for both undisturbed and
remolded soil specimens as well as in situ and laboratory soft rock specimens. This
test method is suitable only for isotropic materials.
Measurements shall be taken by portable thermal resistivity device (Huxflex FTN01)

in 2 cm diameter, 30 cm depth drilled holes on specified locations. Measurements
shall be taken in 15-30 minutes interval and by heating. Measurement shall be taken
in every 1000 m2 for good representation of the area. Each measurement shall be
given in separate tables. Resistivity values may change depending on mineralogical
37
TD02AKA601CR0001
composition, porosity of the soil/rock and the tectonic characteristics of the

environment.
The specified location and the measurement information are given figure 3.12 and
table 3.13 respectively. Test datas can be found in the appendices.
Figure 3.13. Thermal resistivity test location
38
TD02AKA601CR0001
Table 3.13. Thermal Resistivity Mesurement Summary

X 4242327.726
Coordinates
Y 719786.5246
Probe type TP09
Time 15:09:52
Resistance Ohm/m 76
Cycle Duration 600
Heater Voltage 3
Standard deviation 0,01
Thermal Resistivity [(mK)/W] 5,58
Lambda [W/(mK)] 0,179
T0 02:24:00
According to thermal resistivity tests result, thermal resistivity value was found 5,58
mK / W and the thermal conductivity value was found 0,179 W / mK. During the
39
TD02AKA601CR0001
design stage which is related with thermal resistivity of the ground, those values
must be considered.
4. GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSES
4.1. Bearing Capacity
Since the geological lithology is formed by tick clay layer, Skemptons (1951)
equation have been used for bearing capacity calculations. Two different bearing
capacity have been calculated for primary crusher building and secondary crusher
building. Since the primary crusher building is placed on clayey soils, Skempton
(1951) equation was used. However, for the secondary crusher building rock
formation exists in the foundation area. Therefore Peck (1974) equation was used for
that building. Both of of the equations are given below;
Skempton (1951): qult = 5 x cU x (1 + 0.2 x (Df / B) x (1+ 0.2 x (B/L)
B: Foundation Width L: Foundation Length Df: Foundation Depth
qult = UCS x RF
UCS: Uniaxial Compressive Strength RF (Reduction factor): For RQD<50%, RF =

Between 0.25 0.1
Primary crusher building:
B: 15.4 m
L: 22.9 m
Df: 1.0 m
Minimum Cohesion Value From Triaxial Test: 59.51 kPa
Safety Factor Value: 3
qult = 5 x 59.51 x (1 + 0.2 x (1.0 / 15.4) x (1+ 0.2 x (15.4/22.9)
qult = 341 kPa
40
TD02AKA601CR0001
qall(net) = 341 kPa / 3 = 114 kPa
qall(brut) = qall(net) + (Df x Unit Weight)
qall(brut) = 114 kPa + (1.0 m x 18.49 kN/m3)
qall(brut) = 132.49 kPa
Secondary crusher building:
Secondary crusher building foundation will be constructed on andesite rock formation

(figure 2.12). Therefore, bearing capacity calculation has been done according to
Peck 1974.
qult = UCS x RF
RF (Reduction factor): For RQD<50%, RF = Between 0.25 0.1
qult= UCS x 0.1
qult = 31.2 MPa x 0.1
qult = 3.12 MPa
qsafe = 3.12 / 10
qsafe = 0.312 mPa = 312 kPa
Allowable bearing capacity (qall(brut)) values for primary and secondary crusher
buildings have been found 132.49 kPa and 312.00 kPa respectively.
Modulus of subgrade reaction values have been determined according to 2000 t/m3
and 30000 t/m3 acccording to Bowles (1988) Broms (1964).
41
TD02AKA601CR0001
4.2. Settlement
Since the geological lithology is formed by tick clay layer, Skempton Bjerrums
(1957) consolidation based settlement equation have been used for calculations.
Bearing capacity values was used as construction load. The equation and parameters
are given below;
Sc = (mvi x i x hi) x 0.70

(Skempton Bjerrum, 1957)
Sc: Total settlement
mvi: One dimensional coefficient of volume compressibility (from consolidation test)
i: Stress Difference
hi: Effective soil layer tickness (m)
Primary crusher building:
mvi: 3.94 m2 / kN
i: 2.97 kPa
hi: 2.46 m
Structure load: 132.49 kPa (bearing capacity value)
Excavation load: 18.49 kPa
Sc = (3.94 m2 / kN x 2.97 kPa x 2.46 m) x 0.70
Sc = 6.56 cm
Secondary crusher building:
Settlement is not expected for secondary crusher building due to rock conditions.
4.3. Foundation and Drainage Recommendations
The calculations show that the maximum settlement value was found 6.5 cm for
132.49 kPa construction load (bearing capacity). Regarding to Skempton and
Macdonald 1956, allowable settlement for shallow foundation buildings range
42
TD02AKA601CR0001
between 75 125 mm. As a result shallow foundation can be used for crusher
building in case 132.49 kPa construction load is not exceeded.
During the foundation design stage, 100 80 cm frost penetration depth given in
Figure 4.1 must be considered. Foundation, infrastructure components, water and
sewer lines must be placed well below the maximum frost penetration depth.
Figure 4.1. Turkey Frost Penetration Depth Map (General Directorate of Highways,
2006)
In order to protect the foundation against the groundwater damage, tar paper and
membrane applications are recommended for the burried part of the construction. In
addition to this application, groundwater must be discharge through the bottom
elevations by using 200 mm PVC tunnel type drainage Pipe.
4.4. Liquefaction Potential
Seed and Idriss (1982) stated that clayey soils could be susceptible to liquefaction
only if all three of the following conditions are met:
1) Percent of fine content less than 0.005 mm <15%,
2) Liquid Limit < 35%, and
43
TD02AKA601CR0001
3) Water Content / Liquid Limit > 0.9.
Due to its origin, this standard is known as the Chinese criteria. When the
laboratory results (given Table 4.1) are taken into account, none of those conditions
are fulfilled. Therefore liquefaction is not expected in the crusher building area.
Table 4. 1. Laboratory results of SPT samples listed for Chinese Criteria

FineContent
Borehole Sample Depth(m) LiquidLimit(%) WaterContent(%) WaterContent/LiquidLimit
(%)
CRBH01 SPT 1,501,95 30.3 NP 23.5
" SPT 6,006,45 52.8 38.9 20.9 0.54
CRBH02 SPT1 1,501,95 72.6 45.0 41.3 0.92
" SPT2 3,003,45 63.2 33.9 30.3 0.89
" SPT3 4,504,95 63.3 37.4 32.4 0.87
" SPT4 6,006,45 63.2 36.4 32.3 0.89
" SPT5 7,507,95 51.0 30.8 29.1 0.94
" SPT6 9,009,23 62.7 33.8 30.1 0.89
" SPT7 27,0027,45 65.1 36.1 33.2 0.92
CRBH04 SPT1 1,501,95 52.5 32.8 30.2 0.92
" SPT2 3,003,45 61.2 36.0 32.9 0.91
" SPT3 6,006,41 33.6 31.4 30.4 0.97
4.5. Excavations and Slope Stability Analysis
During the crusher facility construction excavations up to 16,00 m will be carried out
(figures 4.2 and 4.3). When the geological setting is taken into account, the
excavation will be in clayey collivium and andesite rocks. In order to predict
excavation induced stability problems, mass failure stability analysis were performed.
The analysis was performed by using laboratory datas and rock mass strength
parameters that obtained by GSI classfication (Chapter 4.4.2). For the clayey
collivium, laboratory direct shear test results were used. Analysis were performed
just for excavataion case without construction load. Excavation depths were used as
in the drawing TD01-ASN-601-C-D-0012 rev 0. Material properties and mass failure
analysis results are given figure 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7. Seismic load was taken 0.1g in
horizontal.
For clayey collivium formations;
44
TD02AKA601CR0001
The FS values were found 3.6 and 2.7 for static and dynamic conditions
respectively for right hand side slope with recommended slope ratio 3H 1V.
For the left hand side slope the FS values were found 4.3 and 3.3 for static
and dynamic conditions respectively and the recommended slope ratio for
clayey collivium is 2H 1V.
For rock formations;
respectively for right hand side slope with recommended mixed slope ratio 1H
2V and 1H 1V.
Regarding to the mass failure analysis sliding surface has been occured in clayey
collivium formation. Analyses clearly show that, the excavation planned in the
crusher area, will not cause any mass failure. However, discontinuity controlled
failure analyses have to be performed before the excavation. Especially andesite rock
discontinuities must be investigated kinematicly on the excavation slope face (For
further studies Hoek and Bray 1981, Kliche 1999, Wyllie and Mah 2004, Turner and
Schuster 1996 are recommended). For the andesite formation final slope ratio must
be recomended after kinematic and joint controlled stability analysis have been
performed. After the joint controlled stability analysis are performed during the
design stage, suitable support system such as shotcrete, dental concrete, ribs, bims,
anchors toe walls, toe ditchs, slope fences etc. have to be suggested. To prevent the
ravelling rock instabilities, MSE wall applications must be considered.
45
TD02AKA601CR0001

Figure 4.2. Excavation zone and geological setting (NW SE direction)
Figure 4.3. Excavation zone and geological setting (SW NE direction)
46
TD02AKA601CR0001

Figure 4.4. Mass failure analysis in static conditions for right hand side slopes
47
TD02AKA601CR0001

Figure 4.5. Mass failure analysis in dynamic conditions for right hand side slopes
48
TD02AKA601CR0001
Figure 4.6. Mass failure analysis in static conditions for left hand side slopes
49
TD02AKA601CR0001
Figure 4.7. Mass failure analysis in static dynamic for left hand side slopes
50
TD02AKA601CR0001
To be able to make an emprical evaluation, Slope Mass Rating (Romana, 1985) is

suggested for minumu support applications. The Slope Mass Rating (SMR) is obtained
from RMR (Figure 4.8) by adding a factorial adjustment factor depending on the relative
orientation of joints and slope and another adjustment factor depending on the method
of excavation. SMR adjusting components are given below and Figure 4.9.
SMR = RMRBasic + (F1 x F2 x F3) + F4
Figure 4.8. RMR Basic chart (Bieniawski, 1976)
51
TD02AKA601CR0001
Figure 4.9. SMR Adjusting components (F1, F2, F3, F4) (Romana, 1985)
Regarding to Slope Mass Rating system, rock mass classes and descriptions are given
Figure 4.10 and support recommendations are given Figure 4.11.
Figure 4.10. SMR classes (Romana, 1985)
52
TD02AKA601CR0001
Figure 4.11. Support Recommendations regarding to SMR classes (Romana, 1985)
53
TD02AKA601CR0001
4.6. Potential Sources for Backfill Materials
To evaluate the potential borrow sources for backfill materials in the investigation area,
backfill material specification chart in General Directorate of Highways Technical Code
(2013) was used. In table 4.2, the limit values and laboratory results of the sample
taken from the investigation are are given.
Table 4.2. Backfill material limit values (KGM, 2013) and test pit sample results taken
from investigation area
Test Limit Value CB-TP-25 Test Result
Liquid Limit (LL) % 60 31.5
Plasticity Index (PI) % 35 17.6
Max Dry Unit Weight t/m 3
1.450 1.67
CBR Swelling % 3 0.91
Regarding to KGM 2013 technical code, CB-TP-25 sample can be used as backfill
material. Due to envoiremental regulations and field conditions, test pit sampling in rock
formations could not be performed. Therefore, rock formations suitability for using as
backfill material, was not investigated.
Regarding to site observations it is found acceptable that the samples taken in admin
campus area can be used to evaluate the suitability of the rock formation as backfill
material. The limit values and laboratory results taken from Geological And Geotechnical
Investigation Report For Administration Campus And Warehouse (TD02-AKA-519-C-R-
0001) are given in Table 4.3. When the results are taken into account, andesite
formation in crusher area is suitable for backfill material regarding to DS 2008.
54
TD02AKA601CR0001
Table 4.3. Backfill material limit values for rock (DS, 2008) and test pit sample results
taken from investigation area
ADM-TP-1 ADM-TP-2
(Bulk-1) (Bulk-2)
Limit
Test Test Results Test Results
Value
X 4242644.7 X 4242678.5
Y 720282.11 Y 720308.42
Sodium sulfate test (%) <10 1.8 2.0
Los Angeles Abrasion (%) <40 16.0 17.0
Water absorption (%) < 1.8 0.8 0.7
Relative Density >2.6 2.82 2.80
Uniaxial Compressive Strength (MPa) >49 51*
Uniaxial Compressive Strength loss after
<10 Not performed Not performed
freezing and thawing (%)
* Avarage value of the UCS tests of andesites in Crusher area
55
TD02AKA601CR0001
5. CONCLUSIONS
1) This report presents the geological and geotechnical investigations prepared

by Akademi Geological Geotechnical Coonsulting for the crusher area at the
proposed kst Mine for kst Madencilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.. (OMAS), a
Turkish subsidiary of Centerra Gold Inc. (Centerra).
2) According to geological surveying work in the crusher area, 3 major geological
units such as clay, andesite and volcanic agglomerate have been encountered.
Clay zone tickness locally differs from 4,00 m to 10,00 m.
3) No groundwater inflow is seen at the surface.
4) The estimated PGA for the 2,475-year return period is estimated at 0.36-0.37g
for the investigation area.
5) In the study area, three boreholes in the crusher area (CR-BH) were drilled.
All boreholes were drilled by Boart Longyear LX-6 drill machine with rotary
method.
6) After the three borehole drilling were performed in the crusher area,
groundwater level measurements were taken. The levels are 10.4 m for CR-
BH-01, 8.6 m for CR-BH-02 and 1.3 m for CR-BH-04.
7) According to the test results of the closest point to the crusher area
(OKDS24), the avarage pH value of the invetigation area was determined as
7,79. When this test result is taken into account corrosion attack is not
expected in the investigation area.
8) In order to get an idea of rock mass quality, RMR and GSI values of the rock
masses in the study area were determined. For RMR the value range is
between 29 and 52 which means poor to fair rock. GSI was determined as 60
which means blocky structures and fair to good surface conditions.
9) According to the laboratory tests, major soil class is formed by low plasticity
clays (CL). The average values of water content and natural unit weight for
soil samples are %30 and 18.49 kN/m3 respectively. Triaxial compressive
strength tests (UU) show that, cohesion values are between 59.51 kPa
77.03 kPa and internal friction angles are between 7 - 11. Additionally, 12
56
TD02AKA601CR0001
internal friction angle and 49.76 kPa cohesion value have been determined by
direct shear test (UU) which performed on undisturbed sample (UD-1) of CR-
BH-1 borehole.
10)For the rocks, unit weight and UCS are found to be 23.39 kN/m3 and 29.7
MPa, respectively. The UCS tests show that the strength of andesites are
between 9.1 MPa 60.7 MPa which means moderately weak to strong rock
strength. Volcanic agglomerate sample in CR-BH-02 borehole has 7.8 MPa
UCS. It is classified as weak rock according to ISRM 1981.
11) The electrical resistivity measurements were performed by using three
different measurement lines in accordence with wenner electrode array.
According to results of the electrical resistivity measurements; the 6th meter
of CR_ERT-1 line and the 24th meter of CR_ERT-3 line are determined as low
resistivity points. Therefore, those points could be more suitable for grounding
applications.
12) Thermal resistivity test has been performed for determining the thermal
conductivity of soil and soft rock in the investigation area and in the laboratory
by using a transient heat method. According to thermal resistivity tests result,
thermal resistivity value was found 5,58 mK / W and the thermal conductivity
value was found 0,179 W / mK. During the design stage which is related with
thermal resistivity of the ground, those values must be considered.
13) Allowable bearing capacity (qall(brut)) values for primary and secondary
crusher buildings have been found 132.49 kPa and 312.00 kPa
respectively. In case higher loads then bearing capacity values are planted,
bearing failure may be occured.
14) Modulus of subgrade reaction values have been determined according to
2000 t/m3 and 30000 t/m3 acccording to Bowles (1988) Broms (1964).
15) According to the Skempton 1951 Bjerrums (1957) consolidation based
settlement equation, settlement values have been found 6.56 cm for Primary
crusher building. Settlement is not expected for secondary crusher building
due to rock conditions.
16) The calculations show that the maximum settlement value was found 6.5 cm
for 132.49 kPa construction load (bearing capacity). Regarding to Skempton
57
TD02AKA601CR0001
and Macdonald 1956, allowable settlement for shallow foundation buildings

range between 75 125 mm. As a result shallow foundation can be used for
crusher building in case 132.49 kPa construction load is not exceeded.
17)In order to protect the foundation against the groundwater damage, tar paper
and membrane applications are recommended for the burried part of the
construction. In addition to this application, groundwater must be discharge
through the bottom elevations by using 200 mm PVC tunnel type drainage
Pipe.
18) Liquefaction is not expected in the crusher building area.
19)According to excavation plan, mass failure analysis have been performed for
the crusher area.
For clayey collivium formations;
respectively for right hand side slope with recommended slope ratio 3H 1V.
For the left hand side slope the FS values were found 4.3 and 3.3 for
static and dynamic conditions respectively and the recommended slope ratio
for clayey collivium is 2H 1V.
For rock formations;
The FS values were found 21.9 and 18.4 for static and dynamic
conditions respectively for right hand side slope with recommended mixed
slope ratio 1H 2V and 1H 1V.
Analyses clearly show that, the excavation planned in the crusher area, will
not cause any mass failure. However, discontinuity controlled failure analyses
have to be performed before the excavation. Especially andesite rock
discontinuities must be investigated kinematicly on the excavation slope face.
For the andesite formation slope ratio must be recomended after kinematic
and joint controlled stability analysis have been performed. After the joint
controlled stability analysis are performed during the design stage, suitable
support system such as shotcrete, dental concrete, ribs, bims, anchors toe
walls, toe ditchs, slope fences etc. has to be suggested.
58
TD02AKA601CR0001
20) CB-TP-25 sample can be used as backfill material in terms of KGM 2013
technical code.
Regarding to site observations it is found acceptable that the samples taken in
admin campus area can be used to evaluate the suitability of the rock
formation as backfill material. When the results are taken into account,
andesite formation in crusher area is suitable for backfill material regarding to
DS 2008.
59
TD02AKA601CR0001
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bieniawski, Z.T. (1989) Engineering rock mass classifications. John Wiley & Sons,
251p.
Golder Associates. 2014. Phase 1 Geotechnical Field Support For kst Project Pit
Slope Stability Geotechnical Investigations. Referenced P4513150035 and
dated May 6, 2014. (Golder, 2014a).
Hoek E, Bray JW (1981) Rock slope engineering, 3rd edition. The Institution of
Mining and Metallurgy.
Karayollar Teknik artnamesi, Karayollar Genel Mdrl, 2013
Ketin, ., 1966. Tectonic units of Anatolia. MTA Bulletin, 66, 23-34.
Kliche AA (1999) Rock slope stability. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration,
Inc. (SME)
MTA Kayseri L-35 1 / 100000 scaled Geological Map, 2009
Okay, A. I. and Tysz, O., 1999. Tethyan sutures of northern Turkey. In: Durand.
B., Jolivet, L., Horvath, E and Seranne, M. (eds) The Mediterranean Basins:
Tertiary Extension within the Alpine Orogen. Geological Society, London,
Special Publications, 156, 475-515.
kst Madencilik (kst Madencilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.. Feasibility Study
Preliminary Release July 2015
Pasquare G., Poli S., Vezzoli L., and Zanchi A., 1988. Continental arc volcanism and
tectonic setting in central Anatolia, Turkey, Tectonophysics 146, 217230.
Rocscience (2011) RocLab v.1 -Rock mass strength analysis using the Hoek-Brown
failure criterion. Rocscience Inc., Canada.
The Prime Ministry Disaster & Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD). 2003.
Seismic Hazard Map for Turkey and Kayseri, retrieved from
http://www.deprem.gov.tr/sarbis/Shared/DepremHaritalari.aspx
Wyllie DC, Mah CW (2004) Rock slope engineering-civil and mining. 4th Edition,
Spoon Press, 431p.
60
TD02AKA601CR0001
7. APPENDICES
61
7.1. BOREHOLE LOGS - COREBOX AND SPT SAMPLE PHOTOS
Borehole No: CR_BH-01

BORING LOG
Page No: 1 / 2
PROJECT NAME: OKSUT MINING DEVELI ORE FIELD GEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL SOIL INVESTIGETION WORK COORDINATE SYSTEM: ED 50
DEPTH: 15.00 m START / FINISH DATE: 06.10.2016 / 06.10.2016 X: 719809.10 Y:4242298.00 ELEVATION:1908.38
DRILLING METHOD: ROTARY, NQ UGWL DEPTH / MEASUREMENT DATE: 10,42 / 21.11.2016 DRILLING MACHINE: Boart Longyear LX6
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DISCONTINUITY ROCK
ELEVATION(m)
SAMPLE TYPE
BLOW COUNTS GRAPHIC
SPACING(n/m)
APERTURE(mm)
WEATHERING
ROUGHNESS
ALTERATION
RQD(%)
SCR(%)
TCR(%)
STRENGTH
LITHOLOGY GRAPHIC LOG
DEPTH(m)
15-30cm
15-30cm
FILLING
0-15cm
TYPE
60
N
0
0
(0.00, 6.50) Clay:
C 18
1
7 10 13 23
SPT-1
2
C 100
UD-1 Reddish-grayish-brown coloured,

wet, no reaction with HCl, clay
3 12 19 50/8 R containing altered-weathered basalt
SPT-2
blocks
905
C 47
5
6 6 6 10 16
SPT-3
C (6.50, 15.00) Andesite:

7
100 50 45 12 C 5< 8-10 none B-C R2-R3 W3

8 C
900
Gray coloured, frequently jointed-

broken, 10-12, C-J, 5mm<, 4-16,
10 none, B-C, R2-R4, W2-W3
C 100 40 38 11 J 5< 10-12 none B-C R3-R4 W2-W3
11
12
13
895
C 100 72 52 10 J 5< 4-6 none B R3-R4 W2
14
BORING LOG Page No: 2 / 2
ELEVATION(m)
SAMPLE TYPE
BLOW COUNTS GRAPHIC
SPACING(n/m)
APERTURE(mm)
WEATHERING
ROUGHNESS
ALTERATION
RQD(%)
SCR(%)
TCR(%)
STRENGTH
DEPTH(m)
15-30cm
15-30cm
FILLING
0-15cm
TYPE
N30
60
0
14
Please look at the previous page for
description..
15 (15.00, 15.00) WELL END
16
17
18
890
19
20
21
22
23
885
24
25
26
27
28
SCALE: 1-1 LOGGED BY:SARPER CARUS

CONTRACTOR: AKADEM JEO. JEOT. ETD PROJE CHECKED BY:MEHMET GLTEKN
DRILLER: KENAN ANAK DATE:07.10.2016

CR_BH01

CR_BH-01 / 1.50 1.95 m
CR_BH-01 / 3.00 3.38 m

CR_BH-01 / 6.00 6.45 m
BORING LOG
Page No: 1 / 3
DEPTH: 32.20 m START / FINISH DATE: 06.10.2016 / 06.10.2016 X: 719761.67 Y:4242336.40 ELEVATION:1901
DRILLING METHOD: ROTARY, NQ UGWL DEPTH / MEASUREMENT DATE: 8.61 / 21.11.2016 DRILLING MACHINE: Boart Longyear LX6
ELEVATION(m)
SAMPLE TYPE
BLOW COUNTS GRAPHIC
SPACING(n/m)
APERTURE(mm)
WEATHERING
ROUGHNESS
ALTERATION
RQD(%)
SCR(%)
TCR(%)
STRENGTH
DEPTH(m)
15-30cm
15-30cm
FILLING
0-15cm
TYPE
60
N
0
0
(0.00, 0.30) Vegetative Soil
(0.30, 0.90) Block: Basalt blocks

C 73
1900
1
(0.90, 9.25) Clay:
9 11 22 33
SPT-1
2
C 100
UD-1
3 8 12 21 33
SPT-2
Dark brown coloured, wet, no
reaction with HCl, %10-15 fine-
medium grained, diffuse, clay
4 C 52 contains %5 fine grained, semi-
angular gravel.
7 13 21 34
SPT-3
5
C 100
UD-2
1895
6 7 6 8 14
SPT-4
7 C 100
7 10 15 25
SPT-5
8
C 100
9 25 50/8 - R
SPT-6
(9.25, 13.50) Andesite:
10
C 67 35 17 28 J 5< 12-14 none B-C R1-R2 W2

1890
11
Grayish colored, slightly broken,
slightly weathered, 24-28, J, 5mm<,
10-14, none, B-C, R1-R2, W2-W3
11.00-12.05 m crushed zone,
12 12.60-12.70 m crusher zone
C 97 48 10 24 J 5< 10-12 none B-C R1-R2 W2-W3
13
(13.50, 21.00) Andesite:

Please look at the next page for
description..
14
ELEVATION(m)
SAMPLE TYPE
BLOW COUNTS GRAPHIC
SPACING(n/m)
APERTURE(mm)
WEATHERING
ROUGHNESS
ALTERATION
RQD(%)
SCR(%)
TCR(%)
STRENGTH
DEPTH(m)
15-30cm
15-30cm
FILLING
0-15cm
TYPE
N30
60
0
14 C J 5< 8-10 none B-C R2 W2-W3
69 11 10 21
15
1885
16
C 95 47 13 33 J 5< 10-12 none B-C R2-R3 W2-W3
17 Grayish coloured, patly broken, 21-

33, 5mm<, 4-12, none, B-C, R2-R3,
W2-W3
18
19
C 91 67 37 28 J 5< 4-6 none B-C R2-R3 W2-W3
20
1880
21
(21.00, 27.90) Andesite:
22
C 97 0 0 C R0-R1 W5-W6
23
24 Yellowish-brown coloured, highly

weathered, argillisation andesite, C,
C 100 0 0 R0-R1 W5 R0-R1, W5-W6
25
1875
26 C 84 0 0 R0-R1 W5-W6
27 8 11 18 29
SPT-7
28
(27.90, 30.00) Aglomerate:
Please look at the next page for

C 100 0 0 24 R0-R1 W5-W6 description..
29
ELEVATION(m)
SAMPLE TYPE
BLOW COUNTS GRAPHIC
SPACING(n/m)
APERTURE(mm)
WEATHERING
ROUGHNESS
ALTERATION
RQD(%)
SCR(%)
TCR(%)
STRENGTH
DEPTH(m)
15-30cm
15-30cm
FILLING
0-15cm
TYPE
N30
60
0
29
Grayish-beige-greenish coloured,
24, R0-R1, W5-W6
30
(30.00, 32.20) Andesite:
Grayish coloured, much jointed, 17,

1870
31 C, 5mm<, 16-18, none, B, R3-R4,

C 98 66 34 17 C 5< 16-18 none B R3-R4 W2
W2
32 (32.20, 32.20) WELL END
33
34
35
1865
36
37
38
39
40
1860
41
42
43


CR_BH02

CR_BH-02 / 1.50 1.95 m
CR_BH-02 / 3.00 3.45 m

CR_BH-02 / 4.50 4.95 m
CR_BH-02 / 6.00 6.45 m

CR_BH-02 / 7.50 7.95 m
CR_BH-02 / 9.00 9.23 m

CR_BH-02 / 27.00 27.45 m
BORING LOG
Page No: 1 / 1
DEPTH: 13.50 m START / FINISH DATE: 13.10.2016 / 13.10.2016 X: 719748,93 Y:4242278,71 ELEVATION:1904.62
DRILLING METHOD: ROTARY, NQ UGWL DEPTH / MEASUREMENT DATE: 1.37 / 21.11.2016 DRILLING MACHINE: Boart Longyear LX6
ELEVATION(m)
SAMPLE TYPE
BLOW COUNTS GRAPHIC
SPACING(n/m)
APERTURE(mm)
WEATHERING
ROUGHNESS
ALTERATION
RQD(%)
SCR(%)
TCR(%)
STRENGTH
DEPTH(m)
15-30cm
15-30cm
FILLING
0-15cm
TYPE
60
N
0
0
(0.00, 0.20) Vegatative Soil
(0.20, 6.50) Clay:

C 40
1
7 9 11 20
SPT-1
2
C 90
UD-1
3 11 15 24 39 Reddish-brown coloured, (Highly
SPT-2
weathered, resudial andesite)
4 C 73
1900
5
C 100
6 25 43 50/11 R
SPT-4
(6.50, 9.50) Andesite:

7
C 81 61 27 12 C 5< 10-12 none C-D R1-R2 W2-W3 Grayish coloured, altered, many
8 fractured, C, 5mm<, 10-18, none, B-
D, R1-R2, W2-W3
9
1895
(9.50, 13.50) Andesite:

10
C 97 64 45 17 C 5< 16-18 none B-C R1-R2 W2
11
Grayish coloured, frequently jointed-
broken, 11, J, 5mm<, 14-16, none,
B-C, R2-R3, W2
12
C 100 80 44 11 J 5< 14-16 none B-C R2-R3 W2
13 (13.50-13.50) WELL END


CR_BH04

CR_BH-04 / 1.50 1.95 m
CR_BH-04 / 3.00 3.45 m

CR_BH-04 / 6.00 6.41 m
GEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR CRUSHER AREA
7.2. TEST PIT LOGS

LOCATION OF TEST PIT FEET JOB NO: CLIENT: PROJECT NAME: EXPLORATION NO:
OKSUT HLF METERS 1654329 (GAT) CENTERRA GOLD MINING (OMAS) Oksut Heap Leach Pad Project
CB-TP-18
LOCATION SKETCH EXCAVATION METHOD: Excavation / Backhoe
See the hand written logs EQUIPMENT: VOLVO EC 290 B LC
Sheet 1 of 1
SAMPLING METHOD: SHELBY TUBE BRASS LINER BULK SAMPLE BAGGIE
CONTRACTOR: GKAR HAFRYAT
SURFACE CONDITIONS: Flat area covered by thorns WATER LEVEL START FINISH
DATUM: ED 50 ELEVATION: 1903m TIME: - - - - TIME: 16:30 TIME: 17:00
OPERATOR: TAHSN GL
NORTHING: 4242418 EASTING: 719767 DATE: - - - - DATE: 02 - OCT - 2016 DATE: 02 - OCT - 2016
CONSISTENCY
% BOULDER
MOISTURE
% GRAVEL
USCS SOIL
% COBBLE
DENSITY /
TEST PIT PROFILE OR PHOTOGRAPHS DESCRIPTIONS/COMMENTS
% SAND
COLOR
% FINE
P-PEN
TYPE
(0.00m - 0.40m) TOP SOIL
- - 10 70 20 B Dry L SM -
Brown colored,loose, silty SAND with gravel and plant roots.
(0.40m - 1.50m) SM TYPE SOIL

- - 15 50 35 B Dry LD SM -
Brown to yellow colored, loose to dense silty SAND (SM) with
gravel.
Note: After 1.50m, HW, R0-R1, yellow to brown colored,
ANDESITE/BASALT.
CHECK BY: RICHARD KIEL
BY: EVRM SOPACI
NOTES Practical refusal is at 3.30m bgs. No bulk sample was taken.

CB-TP-20
Sheet 1 of 1
SURFACE CONDITIONS: Flat area covered by grass WATER LEVEL START FINISH
OPERATOR: TAHSN GL
CONSISTENCY
% BOULDER
MOISTURE
% GRAVEL
USCS SOIL
% COBBLE
DENSITY /
% SAND
COLOR
% FINE
P-PEN
TYPE
(0.00m - 0.40m) TOP SOIL
- - 10 70 20 B Dry L SM -
Brown colored,loose, silty SAND with gravel and plant roots.
(0.40m - 1.50m) ML TYPE SOIL

- - 15 30 55 B Dry S ML -
Brown colored, soft, sandy SILT (ML) with gravel.
Note: After 1.50m, HW/MW, R3, dark gray to black colored,
ANDESITE/BASALT.
BY: EVRM SOPACI

CB-TP-25
Sheet 1 of 1
SURFACE CONDITIONS: Flat area covered by thorns and grass WATER LEVEL START FINISH
OPERATOR: TAHSN GL
CONSISTENCY
% BOULDER
MOISTURE
% GRAVEL
USCS SOIL
% COBBLE
DENSITY /
% SAND
COLOR
% FINE
P-PEN
TYPE
(0.00m - 0.40m) TOP SOIL
- - 10 65 25 B Dry L ML -
Brown, soft, sandy SILT (ML) with gravel and
plant roots.
(0.40m - 3.00m) SC TYPE SOIL

- - 15 44 41 B Dry L SC -
Brown, loose to m.dense, clayey SAND (SM) with
some gravel, dry
Note: After 3.00m, HW, R1 , pink to red colored,
ANDESITE/BASALT.
BY: EVRM SOPACI
Practical refusal is at 3.40m bgs. One bulk sample was taken from
NOTES
0.40m - 3.00m.
CB-TP-26
Sheet 1 of 1
SURFACE CONDITIONS: Flat area covered by grass WATER LEVEL START FINISH
OPERATOR: TAHSN GL
CONSISTENCY
% BOULDER
MOISTURE
% GRAVEL
USCS SOIL
% COBBLE
DENSITY /
% SAND
COLOR
% FINE
P-PEN
TYPE
(0.00m - 0.40m) TOP SOIL
- - 10 65 25 B Dry L ML -
Brown colored,soft, sandy SILT (ML) with
gravel and plant roots.
Note: After 0.40m, HWMW, R2 , dark colored,
ANDESITE/BASALT.
BY: EVRM SOPACI

7.3. LAB RESULTS

7.3.1. LAB RESULTS OF BOREHOLE SAMPLES

7.3.2. LAB RESULTS OF TEST PIT SAMPLES

Sondaj ve naat Mhendislik Mavirlik A. Zemin Mekanii Laboratuvar
TOKER Drilling and Construction Engineering Consultancy Co. Soil Mechanics Laboratory
GRANLOMETR ERS / GRAIN SIZE CURVE
Proje / Project : GOLDER Rapor No: 0021/2014
Sondaj/Boring No : TP-24 Numune/Sample No: B-3,4 Derinlik/Depth (m): 1.70-2.25
21/2"
#100
1.5"
#200
3/8"
#10
#40
3/4"
#4
2"
1"
100
90
80
aplarI D'den kk daneler yzdesi
70
Percent finer than D
60
N-P
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0,001
D (mm)
Dane Boyutu/Grain Size
akl - Gravel Kum - Sand Silt - Silt

Zemin
Stone
Kil - Clay AASHTO

Ta
Kaba Orta nce Kaba Orta nce Kaba Orta nce

Soil Coarse Medium Fine Coarse Medium Fine Coarse Medium Fine T 88
rnek Sanayi Sitesi 1264 Sokak. No:28 Ostim ANKARA Tel:3545433 FPH.06.05/18.04.2006/00
Deneyi Yapan : Hakan Merdan
Sondaj/Boring No : TP-24 Numune/Sample No: B-5 Derinlik/Depth (m): 2.75-4.50
21/2"
#100
1.5"
#200
3/8"
#10
#40
3/4"
#4
2"
1"
100
90
80
70
60
N-P
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0,001
D (mm)

Zemin
Stone
Kil - Clay AASHTO

Ta

Sondaj/Boring No : TP-24 Numune/Sample No: B-1,2 Derinlik/Depth (m): 0.15-1.70
21/2"
#100
1.5"
#200
3/8"
#10
#40
3/4"
#4
2"
1"
100
90
80
70
60
N-P
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0,001
D (mm)

Zemin
Stone
Kil - Clay AASHTO

Ta

7.4. LABORATORY CERTIFICATES

Laboratuvar Firmas Bilgileri Page 1 of 1
Laboratuvar Firmas Bilgileri LBN: 67 - AKADEM JEOLOJK-JEOTEKNK-ETD-PROJE-MH.-M.-NAAT-SAN.-TC.LTD.T.
Firma Bilgileri
nvan : AKADEM JEOLOJK-JEOTEKNK-ETD-PROJE-MH.-M.-NAAT-SAN.-TC.LTD.T.
Merkez l : ANKARA
Vergi Dairesi : OSTM
Vergi No : 0110179051
Ticaret/Sanayi Odas : ANKARA
Sicil No : 153951
letiim Bilgileri
Adres : ALINTER BULVARI 1151. SOKAK GL-86 STES NO : 1/80-81 OSTM-YENMAHALLE/ANKARA
ube Adresi :
Numune Toplama Mer :
Telefon : 03123856767
Faks : 03123855952
URL :
E Posta : info@akademizemin.com
Laboratuvar Bilgileri
zin Belge No : 67
zin Belge Tarih: 17.10.2003
Hizmet Tipi : Zemin Laboratuvar
Kurucular
sim Soyisim Hisse Oran

1 O. OUZ TFENKC 80.0
2 SERTAN DEMR 20.0
irket Mdrleri
T.C Kimlik No sim Soyisim Yetki Balang Tarihi Yetki Biti Tarihi
15539257726 OSMAN OUZ TFENKC 09.10.2006 09.10.3025
Denetiler
No Dosya sim Soyisim Meslek Sicil No e Balama

20668 27341 SERTAN DEMR Jeoloji Mh 8359 19.03.2012
28061 35814 MURAT YERTUTANOL Jeoloji Mh 14916 21.09.2016
Personel
sim Soyisim Titri e Balama

GNER ESRA NURHAN Deney Yapan Eleman 02.04.2016
CEREN YURTSEVERE Deney Yapan Eleman 13.03.2012
ECENUR BULUR Deney Yapan Eleman 18.12.2015
FATH GVEN Deney Yapan Eleman 23.08.2007
ESMA OBAN Deney Yapan Eleman 01.08.2016
SAMET YILDIZ Deney Yapan Eleman 01.11.2014
EMRE TANER Deney Yapan Eleman 02.02.2012
http://uyds.yds.gov.tr/yds/rol/laboratuvar/main.jsf 19.12.2016

Geological and Geotechnical Report for Crusher Area

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Geological and Geotechnical Report for Crusher Area

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

OKSUT GOLD PROJECT

GEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

AKADEM GEOLOGICAL GEOTECHNICAL SURVEY PROJECT ENG. CONSULTING

By using the laboratory results; bearing capacity, settlement and liquefaction

Table 1.1. Reference Project Documents ............................................................. 4

This report presents the geological and geotechnical investigations prepared by

1.1. Project Description And Background

This report provides a description of the geotechnical field investigations and

1.2. Previous Site Works

As a geotechnical investigation, couple of works have been done in the previous

Several geotechnical investigations such as borehole drilling, pit excavations,

1.3. Scope Of The Work

recommendations for the foundation design.

1.4. Location And Accessibility

Figure 1.1. Location of the investigation area

Figure 1.2. Summary of Average Monthly and Annual Precipitation

Table 1.1. Reference Project Documents

Table 1.2. Standards & Suggested Methods

Turkish Standards, Geotechnical investigation and testing - Laboratory testing

TS 2028 Turkish Standards, Determination of Unconfined Compressive Strength of Rocks

TS 699 Turkish Standards, Methods of Testing for Natural Building Stones

Turkish Standards, Determination Of Elastic Module And Poissons Ratio Of

Standard Test Method for Resistance to Degradation of Small-Size Coarse

Standard Test Method for Soundness of Aggregates by Use of Sodium Sulfate

Standard Test Method for Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Porous

Rock characterization, testing and monitoring. International Society for Rock

KGM 2013 General Directorate of Highways Technical Code

2.1. General Geology

Kadmasattepe Volcanics: The formation that composed of andesitic lavas and

Kadmasattepe Volcanics are conformably overlayed by Kzlkaya ignimbrites.

Sarca Volcanics Member is partly observed as interlayered with rgp Formation

Develi Volcanics are uncomformably overlayed by Sarca Volcanics. The formations

Figure 2.4. Andesite intact rock samples

Figure 2.5. Tuff intact rock samples

2.2. Local Geology and Site Observations

Figure 2.8. Photo locations

Figure 2.11. Corebox photo of CR-BH-01 (9,00 m 14,00 m)

Due to the topographical conditions and environmental regulations, accessing to the

Figure 2.12. Soil-rock formations boundary plot

Figure 2.13. Cross section locations

Figure 2.14. Longitudinal geological cross section (1H 2V scaled)

Figure 2.15. Latitudinal geological cross section (1H 2V scaled)

2.3. Structural Geology and Seismicity

Figure 2.17. AFAD Seismicity map of the Investigation area

3. 2016 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION PROGRAM

In order to assess geological and geotechnical investigation of the area, firstly

3.2. Field Studies

Discontinuity specification charts used in the borehole logging, such as type,

Table 3.1. Borehole coordinates

CR-BH-04 13.50 719748.93 4242278.71 1904.62

Figure 3.1. Borehole locations

Table 3.2. Standart penetration test values

Table 3.3. Standart penetration test graphs by depth

Figure 3.2. Discontinuity specification charts

Table 3.4. Summary of geotechnical data

3.2.2. Test Pits

Table 3.5. List of the test pit locations excavated by Golder

Figure 3.3. Locations of the test pits performed by Golder

Table 3.6. Groundwater depths

CR-BH-02 32,20 05.10.2016 20.11.2016 8.6

CR-BH-04 13.50 13.10.2016 20.11.2016 1.3*

3.3.1. Chemical Compounds of the Groundwater

Groundwater pH test results given in Feasibility Study Preliminary Release Report by