Effect of Rib Pillar Extraction on the Surrounding Rock Mass with Large Diameter Blasthole Stoping as Method of Extraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large scale production methods always pose a serious threat to the natural pillars left intact in underground metalliferrous mines.Rib pillar extraction in underground metal mines is a complex process that requires careful consideration of geo-mechanical factors to ensure stability and safety.The stability of rib pillars is influenced by various parameters, including mining methods, rock mass characteristics, and extraction sequences.Extraction of rib pillar between mined out stopes plays a crucial role in redistribution of stresses around excavated stopes as well as the natural pillars which maintains the stability of the underground structures.Effective design and optimization, often involving numerical modelling techniques, are essential to ensure the safety and efficiency of underground mining operations.The present study focuses on three-dimensional finite element analyses to analyze the behaviour of the surrounding rock mass subjected to rib pillar extraction in an underground copper mine.A remnant vertical pillar of 3 m is left intact on either side of the rib pillar and the rest rock mass of 14 m thickness is extracted.A total of 5 different sequence of extraction have been considered with elastic constitutive material model.Based on the results obtained from the numerical modelling simulation, some useful conclusions have been inferred for the barrier crown pillar, crown pillar between main levels and 3 m remnant pillars.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".