Igure four. Numerical simulation of ore IL-4 Protein Epigenetic Reader Domain drawing procedure: (a) subparagraph 1; (b) subparagraph two; Figure four. Numerical simulation of ore drawing approach: (a) subparagraph 1; (b) subparagraph 2; (c)subparagraph three; (d) subparagraph four. (c) subparagraph three; (d) subparagraph 4.three.1.two. Evaluation of Simulation Outcomes three.1.2. Evaluation of Simulation Benefits The ore drawing statistical outcomes of 20 simulation schemes are shown in Table two. In the ore drawing statistical final results of 20 simulation schemes are shown in Table 2. the statistical benefits of ore drawing in every 16-Dimethyl prostaglandin E2 Purity & Documentation single sublevel, only the sublevel the sublevel height In the statistical results of ore drawing in every single sublevel, only height production drift spacingdrift spacing of are m 20 m arean example as an instance because of space production of 19 m 20 m 19 presented as presented due to space limitations, as shown in Table shown in Table 3. limitations, as three.Table two. Statistical table of ore drawing benefits of every simulation scheme.Analog SchemeSegment Height/mApproach Space/mDifference in between Recovery and Dilution Ratio/Metals 2021, 11,six ofTable two. Statistical table of ore drawing final results of each simulation scheme. Analog Scheme A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A ten A 11 A 12 A 13 A 14 A 15 A 16 A 17 A 18 A 19 A 20 Segment Height/m Strategy Space/m 15 18 20 22 15 18 20 22 15 18 20 22 15 18 20 22 15 18 20 22 Difference amongst Recovery and Dilution Ratio/ 82.five 83.7 85.16 84.3 83 84.25 86.54 85.39 81.eight 83.31 84.51 83.8 80 81.64 83.34 82.2 78.2 80.6 82.29 81.17.23.Table three. Statistical information of 19 m 20 m ore discharge benefits. Discharge Section Very first segment Second segment Third segment Fourth segment Typical Mine Release/ Mg 120.62 225.56 276.25 206.12 207.14 Total Release Ore /Mg 23.91 25.91 24.07 23.81 22.90 Total Release Ore /Mg 144.53 251.47 300.32 229.93 231.56 Dilution Ratio/ 16.54 ten.30 8.01 10.35 9.Recovery Ratio/ 78.47 105.61 96.19 97.18 96.(1)Single-factor analysisAccording to the numerical simulation drawing benefits, the single aspect evaluation of 20 schemes was carried out . The distinction in between recovery and dilution ratio Y and sublevel height H and production drift spacing B is shown in Figure five. By analyzing the changing trend in the curve in Figure 5a, it might be seen that the difference among recovery and dilution ratio at every single production drift spacing first enhanced after which decreased with the enhance in sublevel height. The distinction between recovery and dilution ratio when the production drift spacing was 20 m regularly remained the largest compared with other production drift spacings together with the raise in sublevel height, indicating that the mining effect was optimal when the production drift spacing was 20 m, plus the maximum value was 86.54 at the sublevel height of 19 m. The difference in between recovery and dilution ratio improved from 85.16 to 86.54 , with a development ratio of 1.62 as well as a tiny adjust when the production drift spacing was 20 m plus the sublevel height increased from 17.five m to 19 m, indicating that the values ranging from 17.5 m to 19 m had been the appropriate sublevel heights. By analyzing the altering trend on the curve in Figure 5b, it may be observed that the difference among recovery and dilution ratio at each and every sublevel height initially improved and then decreased using the boost in production drift spacing. The difference among recovery and dilution ratio when the sublevel height was 19 m frequently remained the largest compared with other sublevel hei.