204 Figure 10 - Safety factors distribution (excavation 8 × 8 m pillars) - left; and safety factor changes on the analyzed cross-section A-A’- right The intermediate 5×6 m pillar scenario represents a technical compromise. The computed stability indices remain around SF ≈ 1.1, which falls within an acceptable operational safety band, while the roof-deflection process is more evenly distributed and less violent than in the 8×8 m variant, reducing the likelihood of dynamic instability development in the liquidation stage (Figure 11). Figure 11 - Safety factors distribution (excavation 5 × 6 m pillars) - left; and safety factor changes on the analyzed cross-section A-A’- right 3.2. Comparative synthesis: stability vs. recovery A cumulative comparison of SF evolution for all pillar sizes (Stage II) is provided in Figure 12, highlighting the overall stability contrast between variants and supporting the selection of 5×6 m pillars as the most balanced solution.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2