20/01/2026
Debunking the Myth: Map3D Models & Tributary Area Theory (TAT) 👨💻
———————————————————————
A common fallacy is that elastic numerical models, particularly those built in Map3D, cannot effectively replicate the results of Tributary Area Theory (TAT) when calculating average pillar stress (APS).
We were commissioned by a client to compare TAT-based APS calculations with Map3D elastic models. The result? A negligible difference of less than 0.3% between TAT and Map3D-modelled APS for the centre pillar in a large, regular layout. This confirms that in elastic, static models with repetitive geometries, equilibrium is governed by geometry and tributary area.
So, when is TAT not enough? In smaller or irregular layouts, where abutments provide support or for pillars close to abutments. Here, TAT can overestimate pillar stress, potentially reducing the percentage extraction that you have planned for. You therefore have a good reason why you need 3D numerical models that can demonstrate to the mine owners, the upside potential for percentage extraction.
As a closing remark: Do not attempt to model any aspect of 3D layouts like bord and pillar with 2D, plane strain numerical modelling programs. This is fundamentally flawed.
At Open House Management Solutions, we don’t just run models: we explain them. Want to see how Map3D can enhance your pillar design and layout planning? Invite us for customized, on-site Map3D training. We’ll show you how to leverage elastic modelling confidently. We have trained over 400 engineers since 2016.
Contact [email protected]