Figure 1 – 3D schematic of the model, depicting the locations of shafts, kimberlite, and granite. To investigate the performance of Shaft 1 under varying conditions, two excavation scenarios (Case One and Case Two) were devised, as illustrated in Figure 2. In this context, spacing refers to the center‑to‑center distance between adjacent shafts. The first scenario (Case One) explored how is the distribution of stress and strain along the two open shafts. Shaft 1 was analyzed while Shaft 2 was positioned at intervals of 6, 10, and 14 meters from its centerline, with results compared against a baseline case in which only Shaft 1 was excavated. The second scenario (Case Two) considered Shaft 1 backfilled while Shaft 2 is kept unfilled. The same spacing values were applied, and the outcomes were contrasted with the reference condition where Shaft 1 alone was excavated and subsequently backfilled. Together, these two setups established a structured approach for evaluating how shaft spacing influence the overall stability of excavations carried out using the VCM. (a)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2