Stability Assessment of Vertical Remnant Pillars In Cut and Fill Mining Method with Numerical Modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cut and fill mining method involves extraction of orebody in horizontal slices in weak rock formations.The void created as a result of excavation is backfilled and vertical pillars are left at intervals if the overlying roof is weak.This method is advantageous in terms of ore recovery and safety, making it a preferred method for steeply dipping orebodies in challenging underground environments.These remnant pillars left intact plays a crucial role in supporting the overlying strata and protecting a safe environment for ore exploitation.The stability of these pillars is important since pillar failure results in catastrophic consequences including subsidence or even loss of lives.Hence, the pillar dimension is one of the important parameters which governs the stability of the overlying strata in cut and fill mining method.The present study focuses on the assessment of vertical pillar stability with 5 m × 5 m dimension left intact throughout the entire depth of orebody in cut and fill post pillar mining method considering three-dimensional finite element analyses.Based on the simulation results obtained from numerical modeling, it was found that the pillar dimension of 5 m × 5 m was stable enough for the considered geo-mining condition with factor of safety above unity.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".