Respirable Dust Sources of Longwall Mining Examined

To adequately attack the longwall dust problem, the US Bureau of Mines funded a contract to define dust sources on a longwall mine face area. The study examined the shearer during sumping, cutting, and tramming, the conveyor, and the roof supports. Tests showed the shearer to be the major dust source. Introduction Long-term illnesses place a heavy burden on miners, the mining industry, and taxpayers. Black lung payments to more than 400,000 miners and their survivors exceeded $9 billion between 1970 and 1980. They are continuing at a rate of $1 billion per year. Recent MSHA data indicate more than 50% of the longwall faces are still out of compliance with the 2 mg/m3 (0.00007 oz per cu ft) respirable dust regulation. Allowable dust limits are often further reduced owing to the presence of silica dust. This substantially increases the problem's severity. Research in the 1970s showed that by modifying the mining method through changing drum-type mining machines from high rpm shallow cutting to slow rpm deep cutting, both specific dust and energy could be reduced (Black et al., 1978; Ludlow and Wilson, 1982; Roepke, Lindroth, and Myren, 1976). The coal mining industry is using more longwall equipment to economically obtain high productivity. This high production rate, however, makes it difficult for longwalls to meet the legal dust standard. Research is showing how both these concerns may be addressed at the mining face. Results reported here explain the relationship of various major elements of the longwall system to dust generation on the longwall face. This paper is based on work completed by Foster-Miller Associates Inc. Objectives were to differentiate dust sources on the longwall face and to quantify dust levels for various elements of the shearer drum. The work was accomplished in two phases. Jonathon Ludlow, project engineer for FMA, developed and performed the necessary testing (Ludlow and Marshall, 1983). Bradley, Hadden, and Weston (1983) have done evaluations on British coal mines that produced similar results to those reported here. They found causative rela¬tionships between haulage speed, production, depth cut, drum speed, and dust generation. They also found that roof support movement increased the dustiness, whereas this work indicated that support movement had only a minor effect on total dust exposure. Both of these results are valid when the variation of mining conditions is analyzed. British mines are deeper than US mines. Therefore, roof rocks and coal are more fragmented than in the shallower US mines. Other reasons for the dust differences include the weaker shales found in Britain and the variation of roof support equipment designs between the UK and the US. Four mines in this report had rock roofs and, thus, would be less dusty. The fifth longwall mine had a coal roof, but the large cross-sectional area and high air velocity minimized dust exposure. Mines and Equipment Five underground longwall mine sites were tested (Fig. 1). All were using double-ended ranging-drum shearers (derds) with some variations in equipment. The mines and equipment details are shown in Table 1. No modification of mining equipment or operating cycles was made during the first phase of testing. The mining process observed followed the normal mine operating procedures. Three GCA RAM-1 respirable dust monitors and two vortex anemometers with cycle notations on portable tape recorders were used in each face area. The start and end of each cycle segment were recorded. Dust monitors record the dust levels once every 10 seconds, thus providing a relatively continuous real time indication of change in