Search Documents

Provide a method for obtaining in situ measurements of coal cutting forces which are needed for mining machine design. Approach A portable in-seam testing device is carried to the face of an underground coal mine heading to measure the cut-ting force encountered by a continuous miner pick directly at its maximum depth of cut. How It Works The tester frame is attached directly to the coal surface with four one inch diameter threaded studs resin-bolted into 1-1/4 inch diameter holes which are drilled 30 inches deep. Spherical nuts and washers compensate for misalignment between the bolts bearing plate, and traverse beams. Spacers can be placed over the studs to assure that the traverse beams remain in the same plane. Cutting forces are applied by a hydraulic cylinder that moves the pick of the tester through a twin-chain arrangement which gives a 20-inch cutting stroke with

Jan 1, 1982

Permit quicker, safer clearance of hang-ups in the ore passes and chutes of underground mines. Approach Develop a device that can be operated from a safe distance to explosively propel a projectile into the hang-up. How It Works The Hang-Up Clearance Module, consisting of a stand, steel disk, explosive charge, and aiming device, is placed at a location convenient for line of sight aiming at the hang-up. This placement can be more than 100 feet from the target. Once aimed, the charge is remotely detonated, and the disk is converted by explosive force into a slug and propelled to the hang-up, bringing it down. The steel disk and an explosive charge are contained by a plastic casing. A small booster which is placed at the rear center of the explosive makes up the last component of the charge. Initiation is accomplished by standard means such as detonating cord or a number 8 blasting cap. When Initiated, a detonation wave travels through the explosive, inverting and consolidating the steel disk into a large slug. This slug is propelled at high velocity to the hang-up, delivering more than 5 million foot-pounds of energy on impact.

Jan 1, 1981

By C. A. Herbert

"The Bureau of Mines for a number of years has conducted experiments at its experimental mine near Bruceton, Pennsylvania, on the explosibility of coal dust, with particular reference to dust explosions in coal mines, and the knowledge so rained may well be applied to the handling of coal dust at industrial plants and elsewhere.Powdered coal is coming into use more and more as a fuel, and the dangers incident to its use should be recognized and guarded against, as a number of accidents have occurred in recent years due to ignorance of this danger or to carelessness.Within the past three years two very serious accidents, under almost identical circumstances, have occurred on the surface at two different coal mines in Southeastern Iowa, due in each case to the sudden ignition of a cloud of fine coal dust.The first accident resulted in the burning of six men, three of them fatally; the second burned eleven; three men died as a result of their burns.The mines in the Southeastern part of Iowa, where these two disasters occurred, are operating in a thin coal bed averaging about three feet in thickness, and are worked on the long-wall advancing system similar to that of Northern Illinois.The miners in this section are paid on a screened coal basis; in other words, receive no pay for the fine coal. As a result they use forks in loading the coal into the mine cars, and naturally a considerable quantity of coal is left along the roadways. Subsequently this fine coal, together with the roof rock that is taken down to give sufficient height on the roadways, is loaded into cars and dumped in piles on the surface. This roof rock is a block, oily shale and the contribution of fine coal and oil shale gives ample combustible material to thoroughly burn the rock as it is dumped."

Jul 1, 1923

Although haulage truck collisions account for only a small percentage of haulage accidents, the likelihood of severe injury, or even death is very high when such a collision does occur. Most rear-end collisions also result in considerable equipment damage, creating a need for expensive repairs. To improve collision protection, some southwestern surface mines have, for several years, been fabricating and using extended bumpers. In cooperation with these mines, the Bureau of Mines has worked to improve this technology by evaluating the structural requiremnts of extended bumpers. How Extended Bumpers Help The Bureau found that when one large rear-dump haulage truck collides with the rear of another an extended bumper protects the driver of the vehicle that is struck by dissipating the impact energy into the rear tires and pushing the whole vehicle forward. An extended bumper also prevents the box on the truck that is hit from penetrating the cab of the other truck-a typical and serious collision hazard. A further advantage derives from the wide design of the extended bumper which helps prevent damage to truck ladders, thereby minimizing any entry or exit problems. Extended bumpers also provide safe work platforms at the front of large haulage vehicles.

Jan 1, 1984

By D. Harrington

"The fire boss in coal mining and the shift boss in metal mining, though held responsible to a large extent for safety of underground employees and of the mine, are, it seems to me, not always vested with sufficient authority nor given compensation commensurate with their duties. The metal-mine shift boss, although his position as regards his relations between employer and employee, is frequently an unenviable one, has as a rule much more authority than the fire boss and is not expected to perform the menial tasks required of the latter by many coal-mining companies.In most coal-mining States the coal-mine foreman and the fire boss are re¬quired to possess a certificate of competency obtained by passing an examination. The foreman is legally responsible for the safety of the miners, as in most instances the superintendent is not required to pass an examination. Although the foreman is held legally responsible for the safety of the miners, the law does not, in general, compel the superintendent or other higher officials to delegate sufficient authority to the foreman to enable him to put his wishes or judgment into effect; and this condition has tended in many instances towards perpetuation of unsafe conditions.The fire boss is held legally responsible for conditions in his ""beat"", but he is generally given only such authority as the mine foreman sees fit to delegate, frequently very little, Moreover, the fire boss is generally required to cover his ""beat"" within two hours before the entrance of the underground workers. Only too often his territory is so great that in order to reach all the working faces and chalk the required date at the face, he must travel at a rapid walk or even run. When such haste is necessary to cover the required ground, it is manifestly im¬possible for the fire boss to make a careful inspection or examination of the roof, timbering, wiring, gas, etc., at each place, and doubtless in his hurry many unsafe conditions escape his notice."

Sep 1, 1920

By K. L. Rubow

"Diesel exhaust and mineral dust concentrations have been measured for aerosols generated in the laboratory and as found in five underground coal mines- 3 utiliting diesel-powered hallage equipment and two electric-powered equipment. Two source apportionment techniques have been applied to differentiate between the mineral dust and diesel exhaust aerosol concentrations. The first technique, using a microbrifke uniform deposit impactor CMOUDI) for size selective sampling, is based on modeling aerosol size and the premise that the diesel exhaust portion of .the aerosol is predom1nately submicrometer and the mineral dust portion is mostly greater that one micrometer in size. The second technique, Chemical Mass Balance CCMB) modeling, was used to referee the analysis of diesel exhaust and mineral dust aerosol concentrations from the size selective sampling results. ,The MOUDI size distribution data were modeled to obtain parameters describing the fine and course fractions of the sampled aerosol and to estimate the contributions to each mode from both mineral ·dust and diesel exhaust aerosol sources. The results showed the size distribution of the mixed aerosols exhibited two definite modes with the minimum between the modes occurring at 0.8 um. For the diesel equipped mines, this analysts yielded an average value for the fraction of the fine aerosol attributable to mineral dust of 1 pct. Less than 5 pct of the coal mine diesel aerosol was found in the coarse size fraction. CMB analysis confirms the original premise for using aerosol size to separate diesel exhaust and mineral dust aerosol during sampling."

Jan 1, 1988

By Wilbur I. Duvall

Surface vibrations of ground, rock, and structures resulting from blasting or other sources are often measured with portable seismographs. These instruments are usually supported by a three-point mount or tripod which is simply placed on a horizontal surface on which vibration levels are to be measured. The rigid-body motion of a tripod-supported seismograph is considered from the point of view that there should be no slippage of the feet with respect to the surface and none of the feet should leave the surface as a result of imparted motion. From these studies the following design criteria are deduced which assure that the seismograph will respond accurately to vibration levels as large as 1/2 g.:3/ First, the coefficient of friction between the feet and the surface on which the instrument rests should be as large as possible, preferably approaching unity; second, the center of gravity of the instrument should be vertically above the centroid of the three-point mount; and third, the vertical distance between the center of gravity of the instrument and the centroid of the three points of contact with the surface should be less than the perpendicular distance between the centroid point and anyone of the three sides of the triangle formed by the three points of contact. Portable seismographs that do not satisfy these conditions should be clamped to the surface if vibration levels above 0.1 g. are to be recorded.

Jan 1, 1961

By J. F. Barkley

"In the course of the Government's Fuel Economy Survey of its own power plants, studies and tests have been made of various oil-burning equipments under power-plant boilers. There are now many types of burners being offered in the relatively limited field of power-plant use. The majority of the types used may be grouped into two general classes- those using steam to effect the atomizing of the oil, and those using mechanical means.Burners using steam have had the most prominence in this field for a long period. The mechanical atomizing type of burner successfully applied on shipboard, however, pointed to a possible betterment in land work. The vision presented itself of a burner that would need no steam for atomizing that would permit of air inlets or registers compactly arranged as a part of the entire burner, and that would only require the natural stack draft usually available in land boiler furnaces. Hence, rather recently there has been much development along this line, resulting in various types of burners.In Table 1 are grouped test items chosen from many tests showing representative analyses of the products of combustion obtained with various burners installed in various types of furnaces. In all these tests the burners were handled by experts and represent practically the best attainable for that particular arrangement. The boiler efficiencies ranged from 70% to 80%. It will be noted that the burners using steam for atomizing were able to secure slightly better 002 and less 02 without the presence of CO."

Feb 1, 1926

By J. E. Tiffany

"The new permissible blasting device, Cardox, utilizes as a blasting agent liquid carbon dioxide which is discharged.as a gas from a steel container or shell. The loaded shell is placed in a borehole, stemmed, and tamped in a manner similar to that employed with explosives, and is fired by electricity.The Bureau of Mines' approval for use of the device in coal mines was granted as Approval No. 1 under date of October 3, 1928; as the result of tests made under the conditions and requirements of Schedule 20. There have been three subsequent extensions whereby minor modifications in the original design were granted.The permissibility of the device is subject to the following conditions; (1) It shall be in all respects similar to the sample submitted for tests; (2) certain thicknesses of disc and. weights of heater ingredient and of carbon dioxide, all of which are set forth in Table 2 under the provisions governing permissibility, must be used: (3) the rear cap must always be in place after the shell has been charged, to prevent accidental firing; and (4) firing must be done by means of a permissible-type blasting unit.The permissibility of Cardox was established by gallery tests similar to those used in testing explosives for permissibility. In these tests the shell was discharged into gallery 1 without causing any ignition of gas and air or of gas, dust, and air mixtures there. The conditions of charging the shell, such as weight of the ingredients of the heater element, the carbon dioxide charge, and thicknesses of the disc, were varied according to the conditions under which it would be likely to be used in blasting. The tests made in gallery 1 are here described in detail, as are also the tests which have been made for determining the propulsive strength of the device and the quantities of poisonous gases given off when a shell is discharged."

Mar 1, 1929

By Russell J. Foster

This Bureau of Mines review focuses on the extent to which technologically and economically feasible programs in substitution, improved processing practices, including recycling, and design can achieve conservation of cobalt, chromium, manganese, and platinum-group metals, and thus reduce U.S. vulnerability to interruptions of supply. In addition, supply-side options--domestic and foreign resources, ocean minerals, and stockpiles--are identified. The report consolidates four major studies on these strategic and critical minerals sponsored entirely or partially by the Bureau in the last few years. These studies have been updated with further information from the recent literature.

Jan 1, 1985

Surface mining of coal involves removing soil and rock that overlay coal beds in order to expose the coal. Compared to underground coal mining, surface mining generally costs less, is safer for miners, and usually results in more complete recovery of the coal. However, it also results in much more extensive, though temporary, disturbance of the land surface, which can cause serious environmental problems unless the mined land is carefully reclaimed. The earliest commercial U.S. coal production was in the anthracite region of Pennsylvania. Beginning in 1807, mining became important enough for the federal government to begin keeping statistics on annual production. During those early years of coal mining, reclamation of mine sites and Support facilities was not required by law; however, in the 1930's, as surface mining became more widespread, the idea of mandatory environmental protection and reclamation started to grow. In 1939 West Virginia enacted the first law to regulate the coal mining industry. Similar laws were enacted by Indiana in 1941, Illinois in 1943, and Pennsylvania in 1945. During that period, coal production accelerated greatly and the surface mining of coal became much more prevalent. During World War 11, the demand for coal took priority over environmental concerns, with little consideration for reclaiming the land after mining. Mining pits were not backfilled. Dangerous highwalls were left exposed. Trees and other vegetation were buried by waste material that was simply dumped down the slopes below mines. Topsoil was buried or allowed to wash away. Landslides formed on unstable hillsides. Slopes eroded rapidly because of the lack of vegetation. Polluted water collected in mine pits. Streams became clogged with sediment. Streams and rivers were frequently polluted by acid mine drainage. This vivid image of surface coal mining remains indelible in the minds of most Americans, who remain unfamiliar with modem surface coal mining methods and the changes brought about by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. After 1945, more coal-producing states instituted regulatory pro- grams. Many required permits for mining. Some included inspections. A few made operators post performance bonds to guarantee reclamation when mining was completed. However, due to the variations in those individual programs, it cost less to produce coal in states with less stringent reclamation requirements, giving operators in those states an economic advantage, generally at the expense of environmental quality. With the 1970's came a surge in the demand for coal resulting from the nation's need for increasing electric power generation and the uncertain supply and increased cost of imported petroleum-based fuels. The resulting increased coal production prompted a series of state laws, primarily in the West, aimed at controlling the environ- mental effects of surface mining. During the late 1960's and early 1970's, North Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, and Montana passed laws to regulate mining and reclamation. The continuing lack of uniformity among the state surface mining programs and the increase in unreclaimed land and associated pollution of water and other resources caused a growing demand for nationwide regulation of surface coal mining, both to remove the economic inequities and to is sure an acceptable standard of reclamation. After many years of debate, Congress passed the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), which was signed into law August 3, 1977. The Act established a coordinated effort between the states and the federal government to prevent the abuses that had characterized surface coal mining in the past. The law also applied to surface disturbances created by underground coal mining.

Jan 1, 1992

By John J. Sammarco, Edward F. Fries

This report (Independent Functional Safety Assessment 4.0) is the fifth in a nine-part series of recommendations addressing the functional safety of processor-controlled mining equipment. It is part of a risk-based system safety process encompassing hardware, software, humans, and the operating environment for the equipment’s life cycle. Figure 1 shows a safety framework containing these recommendations. The reports in this series address the various life cycle stages of inception, design, approval and certification, commissioning, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning. These recommendations were developed as a joint project between the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. They are intended for use by mining companies, original equipment manufacturers, and aftermarket suppliers to these mining companies. Users of these reports are expected to consider the set in total during the design cycle. • 1.0 Safety Introduction.—This is an introductory report for the general mining industry. It provides basic system/software safety concepts, discusses the need for mining to address the functional safety of programmable electronics (PE), and includes the benefits of implementing system/software safety program. • 2.1 System Safety and 2.2 Software Safety.—These reports draw heavily from International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard IEC 61508 [IEC 1998a,b,c,d,e,f,g] and other standards. The scope is “surface and underground safety-related mining systems employing embedded, networked, and nonnetworked programmable electronics.” System safety seeks to design safety into all phases of the entire system. Software is a subsystem; thus, software safety is a part of the system’s safety. • 3.0 Safety File.—This report contains the documentation that demonstrates the level of safety built into the system and identifies limitations for the system’s use and operation. In essence, it is a “proof of safety” that the system and its operation meets the appropriate level of safety for the intended application. It starts from the beginning of the design, is maintained during the full lifecycle of the system, and provides administrative support for the safety program of the full system. • 4.0 Safety Assessment.—The independent assessment of the safety file is addressed. It establishes consistent methods to determine the completeness and suitability of safety evidence and justifications. This assessment could be conducted by an independent third party. • 5.0 Safety Framework Guidance.—It is intended to supplement the safety framework reports with guidance providing users with additional information. The purpose is to assist users in applying the concepts presented. In other words, the safety framework is what needs to be done and the guidance is the how it can be done. The guidance information reinforces the concepts, describes various methodologies that can be used, and gives examples and references. It also gives information on the benefits and drawbacks of various methodologies. The guidance reports are not intended to promote a single methodology or to be an exhaustive treatment of the subject material. They provide information and references so that the user can more intelligently choose and implement the appropriate methodologies given the user’s application and capabilities. [ ]

Jan 5, 2003

Provide longwall operators with an alternative strategy for placement of gob gas ventholes to improve gas production.

Jan 1, 1995

By Jr. Flynn

"The Bureau of Mines receives and answers many requests for information on the qualities and properties of American coals, and also publishes many papers that deal with coal characteristics. Compilations of chemical analyses of coal from specific locations are contained in a series of technical papers,2/ by States, whereas typical analyses of coal seams, by States and counties, are given in data books, volumes 1 to 7,2/ by producing districts, as defined in the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937. Bulletin 446, ""Typical Analyses of Coals of the United States,"" condenses and supplements these data books, which do not apply to the Western States. Other coal properties are described in numerous publications listed in the Bureau of Mines Bibliography of Publications. However, no recent publication lists average B.t.u. values by rank on a Statewide and national scale. Averages have been estimated in the past, and some of them are included in this paper for comparison.The average and the ranges of as-received B.t.u. values of American coals on a Nation-wide basis, as found by the statistical method described in this paper, are given in table 2 and on a State-wide basis in table 3. The following is abstracted from table 2:In deriving average B.t.u. values for coals, the results depend on the type of data available and the methods of calculation. The data, or analyses, may represent any of three types of samples - mine, tipple, or delivered. In mine sampling, a channel cut is made of a vertical face of the coal bed, carefully excluding most of the impurities, and the material retained is the sample. It is readily seen that mine samples are selected samples and do not strictly represent the unmined coal bed, unless the coal contains no major impurities. Mine samples generally represent the best-quality coal that could be produced. In contrast to mine samples, tipple and delivered samples represent coal that actually has been mined, and their analyses may show either lower or higher values than mine samples of the same coal, depending on treatment and preparation after mining.Of the thousands of analyses accumulated by the Bureau of Mines, most are of either tipple or delivered samples and represent the coal after it has been mined. Any average calculated from this aggregate of data will, consequently, reflect coal that has been produced, and not unmined coal in situ.The method of calculating an average from the basic data also will have considerable influence. If there are three seams of coal in a county, the average analysis for the county is not necessarily the arithmetic mean of analyses of the three individual seams. For a probable average of unmined coal, the B.t.u. values of each seam should be weighted in proportion to the unmined reserves of each seam. In similar manner, an average for past pro¬duction should be weighed according to the past production for each seam. Figures for coal reserves are only estimates based upon geologic evidence and its interpretation. Production records are much more accurate than estimated reserves, although detailed production records for individual seams by counties are very few."

Dec 1, 1949

By John D. Bardill

This report covers the magnetic survey in the Redford-Clayburg area , which was part of a general survey of magnetite deposits in New York started in 1943 . Other areas being surveyed include the Star Lake district , St. Lawrence County; Russia Station district , Clinton County; Brewster district , Putnam County; and the Sterling district , Orange County. Only a relatively small portion of the area was covered by reconnaissance and detailed surveys . Results were promising enough to warrant additional work. Magnetic surveys of this type serve as a basis for selecting areas for diamond drilling by the Bureau of lines .

Jan 1, 1947

By L. D. Gehi, A. W. Khair, M. Ahmad

"Bit wear presents problems to mining operations because it affects both productivity and economics. Most bit research deals with energy requirements and energy dissipation mechanics for ideal fragmentation during the cutting process.Mechanical cutting leads to dust generation. Past studies involving dust generation due to bit wear concluded that dust concentrations increased considerably after a 7% bit weight loss: leading researchers recommend that the bits be changed at that point.Bit wear is affected by three factors: machine operating parameters in-situ mining conditions and rock properties. Operating parameters such as the depth of cut tool material spray position and the drum's rotating velocity are very important and have a definite impact on bit wear.During the mining process the amount of rock in coal and the strength of that rock is important as abrasion and adhesion take affect. Diffusive wear or deformation becomes dominant only when the temperatures exceed critical. Temperatures rise as a function of drum velocity rock properties and the cutting tool itself.Miner bit surveyIn this study, 15 mines were surveyed, and of those six responded for nine seams. The survey reflected a wide range of information about coal production and bit consumption from continuous miner sections. Also used bits were collected to get first-hand information to analyze wear."

Nov 1, 1995

Wires leading to or from underground facilities can develop hazardous voltages because of lightning exposure. The locations of many mine portals are particularly susceptible to lightning effects. The application of protective devices to limit this potential danger is necessary.

Jan 1, 1975

Reduce longwall shearer operator's dust exposure by selecting the best drum water spray sys-tem for minimizing dust generated durinq cutting. Approach Three of the most commonly-used drum water spray systems were installed on the same set of shearer drums and compared to determine which system best suppresses dust. The spray systems studied were: ? pick-point flushing ? cavity filling ? water-through-the-it Instantaneous and gravimetric sampling instruments were used to measure the respirable dust exposures of the shearer operators and dust concentrations downwind of the shearer. The Three Systems: Longwall shearer drums are routinely equipped with internal drum spray systems since these systems have been shown to be more efficient than external systems in terms of dust suppression per gallon of water applied. All U.S. longwall shearer faces utilize some type of internal water delivery spray system. The two most common systems are bit-or pick-point flushing and cavity filling. Pick-point flushing uses nozzles mounted in the bit blocks or in special blocks immediately in front of the bits. Cavity filling utilizes spray nozzles installed in a pipe manifold mounted on the drum hub between the scrolls or along the edge of the vane scrolls; water is sprayed radially from the manifold towards the adjacent vane scroll.

Jan 1, 1986

By Willis Beckering

The Bureau of Mines designed a cell having four variable compartments in series to facilitate analysis of multicomponent mixtures. Use of the cell considerably decreases the time required for differential absorption analyses. A solution of a major component is placed in each compartment, and the light absorbed by each of these components is varied by increasing or decreasing the path length of the appropriate cell. Simple calculations then establish the amount of the component present. In analyzing unknown mixtures, compensation is made for compounds known to be present, and the differential spectrum representing components not accounted for is recorded and analyzed.

Jan 1, 1966

By R. V. Lundquist

Lime-soda sinters, made and processed for recovering alumina and soda, consisted of several types of compound structures differing from the ideal dicalcium silicate and sodium aluminate. Many or these compound structures were causes for low alumina recovery and contributed to the relation or leach slurries. Presence or free lime, whether in the sinter or released by hydrolysis of sinter compounds, contributed to relation of leach slurries. Free lime tends to establish the initial viscosity assumed by a leach slurry. Previous investigations by the Bureau of Mines (1, 4)4/ and by other laboratories (5) have demonstrated the technical applicability of the lime-soda sinter process to the recovery of alumina from aluminum silicate materials. The basic concept of the process is sintering aluminum silicate materials with limestone and soda ash for the production of dicalcium silicate and sodium aluminate and then extracting the sodium aluminate by leaching the sinter in causticized liquors. Alumina is precipitated from the pregnant liquors by carbonating with carbon dioxide. Reaction in the sintering operation may be represented by the following simplified equation: A1203?SiO + 2CaCO3 + Na2C03 = 2Ca0?SiO + Na20?Al203 + 3C02

Jan 1, 1960