Search Documents

By Peter Iovino

Unfortunately, I don't know the unit cost per cubic yard of treatment. I reflected on that yesterday and I don't think that we considered the use of micropiles. They could have been an option. The challenge may have been picking up some of the lateral load but I think the micropiles could have been installed on a batter and perhaps extended to rock. We could have considered them, but I do not believe we explored micropiles as an option for this project.

Feb 10, 2003

By Jim Bruce

No answer required. From the drilling equipment suppliers, but the specifications must be tailored to be project-specific. Yes, the sonic technique is very interesting as we said, and it is not so much as an issue of the magnitude of power, it's about the efficient use of the power. The efficiency of the machine is not necessarily related to size so it is best to talk to the two contractors that supply the service about that. I think it can be scaled down but it is quite a big head, so therefore there are practical limitations on the size of the door it can walk through and also the size of the casings and rods that it can use. You might defeat the economic advantages if you were to use too short casing lengths. Boart Longyear have a low head room machine that can work within an 8 foot verical clearance.

Feb 10, 2003

By Mary Ellen Bruce

Let me first address the issue of the wet grab samples. The wet grab samples that were attempted to take on the Central Artery were hindered by the fact that the way the mixing was being done was only by injecting grout on the way out, during withdrawal of the mixing tools. They would auger down to the required depth (usually with some water being injected), which took anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour, and then when coming out, the grout would be injected with grout. That was leaving a column of grout in the center where the shaft had been (i.e. inside of the blades of the mixing tools), which would end up being something like a foot in diameter because the pipe that was used for the drill shaft was a foot in diameter. So we had 10 inches to a foot of almost pure grout in the middle of our column and then we had 2 feet on either side that was mixed soil cement. So when they went down with the wet grab sampler not knowing where that was in the column sometimes they/we were getting strengths of 1500 psi, and sometimes they/we were getting strength of 500 psi or 100 psi. So what was it that we were taking into the wet grab sampler? In those cases you don't really know, but it wasn't representative of the core samples we were taking. We were purposely not coring in the center because we knew that was going to be high cement content, almost pure grout. So the issue of wet grab sampling particularly on this project, the Central Artery Project, was that we didn't really know what we were sampling. What becomes an issue with wet grab sampling in other projects is that you have to have another device (machine) in most cases, a cherry picker crane or something similar that can raise and lower with a beam that is used to forces the sampler down into the freshly mixed soil-cement. And regarding economics, is it more economical to have that crane standing by with its operator or to have a drill rig to come along later and do the coring and take the material out that's fairly identical to what you're finding in situ? The complaint of micro-fracturing in the core samples as you're taking the cores was raised by Seiko as causing large strength reductions. But, if you're doing it carefully, then I don't think that's much of an issue anymore, on research basis perhaps but not on a practical level.

Feb 10, 2003

By Lois G. Schwarz

I did a project (Sungai Piah) as a consultant to your firm in Malaysia, where we were faced with a similar situation as sketched out in your question. The following is what we did for the grouting of the primary holes, which were both located upstream of the plug as well as downstream: We used a hydrophobic MDI based semi-rigid polyurethane prepolymer in the first phase of the grouting operation when grouting under water flow conditions. Then in the second phase and also for the contact grouting we used a two component water compatible polyurethane elastomer. And then for deeper formation grouting, when all the water flow had been stemmed in the vicinity of the plug, we used a regular (balanced stable) cement based grout. So it may not exactly answer your question, but we first used hydrophobic grout because it is very efficient to grout a formation through which water flows. We didn't stop all the leaks day-lighting downstream of the plug or all water running through the formation near the plug, but the flow of water through the rock formation adjacent to the plug was reduced by 99.9%, after completing the urethane grouting. This facilitated the placement of cement based suspension grouts without wash-out.

Feb 10, 2003

By Allen Cadden

The type of soil we had was a silty fine sand. It had been placed by hydraulic methods in 1904 so it was quite clean I would say less than 10% silt the rest of it was very loose sand. That I'm not certain, I've only done it on sandy soils but it would stand to reason that some sort of a number should apply because you are measuring the amount of work that you are doing to it so if the soil is fairly consistent over the site it should be able to generalize from there but I don't know for a fact that it works. Well, verifying to ourselves that this method actually worked because we weren't certain at first when we were doing it so then we would develop the numbers and then check the results.

Feb 10, 2003

By Mitsuhiro Shibazaki

Generally, water-soluble polymers are effective in convergence of water jet ejected from a nozzle as they add viscosity to water. However, excessive additional polymers (added to keep water viscous) could increase friction on the contrary. Therefore, we have totally modified the jetting system from every possible aspect, such as the shape and upstream conditions of a nozzle in order to keep the flow spread to the minimum as stated in my presentation.

Feb 10, 2003

By James Warner

Investigations of the sinkhole indicated that the loose, disturbed ground was completely encircled by dense competent core. This confinement substantially increased the effectiveness of the compaction grouting compared to what might have been expected at a "greenfield" site. However, the 8 ft diameter circle shown in the plan view was only the surface expression of the sinkhole proper and the deep, loosened ground actually extended to a larger diameter of about 20 ft. The planned spacing of the grout holes was based on the finite element simulations using a target void ratio of less than 0.3 throughout the compacted ground within a 5 ft radius of the grout injection point. Because of the strong confinement effect, the layout of grout holes included one central primary hole surrounded by six secondary holes at a triangular spacing of about 5 ft. Since the disturbed ground was considered a confined cylinder, it was anticipated that the primary hole would perform the majority of work and the secondary holes would act as check holes, with progressively lesser grout takes as the loose ground densified.

Feb 10, 2003

By Gary T. Brill

In the presentation, the development and new applications of the jet grouting technique in the North America are briefly introduced at first and followed by the outline and advantages of Jet Grouting. Several recent projects for jet grouting are presented in which the applications to underpinning and excavation support, foundation, groundwater barrier and seismic stabilization are briefly discussed.

Feb 10, 2003

Workers in underground stone mines have a high fatality rate caused by falls of ground from the mine roof or rib. NIOSH recommendations to reduce ground fall injuries and deaths address baskets, mechanical scalers, mechanical bolters, drill steel changing, personal protective equipment, and training. Description of Exposure An informal National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) review in 1998 identified approximately 17 new underground limestone operations in vari¬ous stages of planning; as many as 35 new underground stone mines are expected by 2005. Many of these new underground stone mines will employ new or inexperienced workers with minimal knowledge of the hazardous conditions that exist underground. Workers in underground stone mines have a fatality rate nearly 20 times that of workers in the manufacturing sector. Three quarters of the fatalities in underground stone mines are caused by falls of ground from the mine roof or rib (Figure 1) [Statistical Abstract of the United States 1985-1999; MSHA 1983-1999]. During 1983-1999, nonfatal ground falls resulted in 140 injuries, or 15% of all underground, lost time stone mine injuries. These nonfatal ground fall injuries resulted in more than 13,800 lost workdays (one third of all lost workdays). Ground falls generate more disabling injuries and time away from work than any other type of incident. [ ]

Jan 11, 2003

By Gregory M. Molinda

The U.S. underground coal miner faces a continuing hazard from the fall of roof. At the root of many injuries and fatalities are weak or defective roof strata. Throughout mining history, millions of miles of entry have provided exposure of every conceivable geologic roof hazard. This report describes the geologic origin, association, and potential danger from the most common hazards. Discussions of weak rock include drawrock, rider coals, head coal, stackrock, and stream valley effects. Discontinuities, or roof defects, are described including, clay veins, slickensides, joints, and paleochannels. A number of examples from U.S. coalfields are used to document geologic structure and associated hazards. Roof fall analysis is a methodology used by NIOSH for hazard recognition and prevention; its application and benefit to the industry are discussed.

Jan 10, 2003

In This Chapter [Finding the dust source Ventilation and dust collector malfunctions Upgrading the dust controls Design stage ventilation planning ] This chapter explains how to reduce respirable dust76 in hard-rock tunnels during excavation by using tunnel boring machines (TBMs). The first steps in combating a dust problem are to take dust samples to pinpoint the source, check the ventilation system, and check the dust collector. If the ventilation system and dust collector are operating properly, then other dust controls such as water sprays and conveyor belt scrapers must be upgraded. For tunnels in the design stage, recommended air quantities are provided. FINDING THE DUST SOURCE AND LOOKING FOR VENTILATION MALFUNCTIONS [The first steps in fighting a dust problem are to take dust samples to pinpoint the source, check the ventilation system, and check the dust collector. Without knowing the exact source, efforts to reduce dust are hit-and-miss (mostly miss).] Taking samples to pinpoint the dust source. In tunnels with high levels of airborne dust, the first task is to pinpoint where the dust enters the airstream. Most dust originates from rock breakage at the tunnel face, but the location where this dust enters the airstream can vary. Dust can leak from behind the TBM face shield, from gaps in the ventilation duct, or from a mal-functioning dust collector. It can be entrained into the air from the muck on a moving conveyor belt. It can even be shaken loose from the underside of the belt as it passes over the idlers. As a start, to locate the dust source, dust samples and air quantity measurements should be taken at the following locations:

Jan 6, 2003

By William A. Hoffman

In This Chapter [MSHA regulations for coal mines MSHA regulations for metal/nonmetal mines OSHA regulations for tunnel construction Types of respirators used in mines and tunnels Filter materials and filter efficiencies Donning, seal checking, and maintenance Filter service life and Respirator information resources] In many cases, engineering controls are not adequate to achieve satisfactory dust levels, so respirators must be used. This chapter explains the Federal regulations governing the use of dust respirators in mines and tunnels and describes the most common dust respirators used. Filter materials and filter efficiencies for respirators are discussed. This chapter also gives some guide-lines for respirator use and recommends sources for more dust respirator information. Respirator effectiveness in reducing dust exposure usually exceeds the effectiveness of most engineering control methods. RESPIRATOR REGULATIONS [Different regulations govern respirator use in coal mines, metal/nonmetal mines, and tunnels under construction.] Coal mines under Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) jurisdiction. Coal mine operators are required to meet dust standards using only engineering control methods. Typical engineering control methods include ventilation and water sprays. Respirators are not regarded as an engineering control method, so respirators cannot be used in lieu of engineering controls.

Jan 6, 2003

By Gregory J. Chekan

In This Chapter [Drilling, blasting, and crushers Diesel particulate Enclosed cabs Ventilation with jet fans Stopping construction methods Propeller fans as main fans] This chapter explains how to control dust in large-entry stone mines, including both silica dust and diesel particulate. Most stone mines are limestone mines, but a substantial minority are marble, sandstone, and granite mines. These mines differ from most others in that entry widths are 30 ft or more and entry heights are 25 ft or more. Such mines, developed with room-and-pillar methods, have large open areas that can make ventilation and dust control more difficult. Because of the difficulty of ventilating stone mines, improved ventilation is a major focal point of this chapter. However, the chapter also covers the control of dust from drills, blasting, and crushers. Another part of the chapter covers enclosed cabs, an effective dust control technique for some workers. BACKGROUND The major dust compliance problem in stone mines is caused by silica (quartz) in the rock. Mines in high-silica rock, 8% or more, are far more likely to have a dust problem than those where there is less silica. Geographically, the limestone in the Northeastern and South Central United States has higher silica than the rest of the country. Chekan and Colinet [2002] have analyzed Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) dust sampling results [MSHA 2001] from the stone industry. They have concluded that, on average across the United States, the workers exposed to the highest dust concentrations are rotary drill operators, front-end loader operators, truck drivers, and crusher operators. However, there are many regional differences. Also, occupations that work outside of cabs, such as blasters, roof bolters, and laborers, can be exposed to high dust levels.

Jan 6, 2003

By Steven J. Page, Andrew B. Cecala, John A. Organiscak

In This Chapter [Drill dust control: wet and dry Enclosed cabs on drills and mobile equipment Haul road dust control] Overburden drilling generates most of the respirable dust that affects workers at surface mines. Both wet and dry methods are available to reduce this drill dust. Overburden removal by mobile excavation equipment such as bulldozers, front-end loaders, and haulage trucks can be dusty, particularly under dry and windy conditions. Tightly enclosed cabs with dust filtration systems can substantially lower the dust exposure of both drill and mobile equipment operators. Haul road dust control can be achieved by water application or chemical application. DRILL DUST CONTROL [Drill dust is controlled with wet or dry systems. Wet systems can be more efficient, but may freeze in the winter. Dry systems require careful maintenance of the drill deck shroud. An improved deck shroud is shown.] Wet Suppression. Wet drilling systems pump water into the bailing air from a water tank mounted on the drill. The water droplets in the bailing air trap dust particles as they travel up the annular space of the drilled hole, thus controlling dust as the air bails the cuttings from the hole [Page 1991]. In wet drilling systems, typical water flow rates are 0.1 to 2.0 gpm depending on the size and type of drill and the moisture level of the overburden. The drill operator controls the flow using a control valve located in the cab. Some drills are equipped with a flow meter to give the opera-tor a visual sign of the flow rate. Raising the water flow will improve dust capture, but too much water causes operational problems. Because of this, the drill operator must exercise care in find-ing the best water flow rate.

Jan 6, 2003

By Jon C. Volkwein

In This Chapter [Instruments for measuring dust How to calculate the amount of dust from a source How to get a valid concentration measurement Sampling to assess control technology effectiveness] When there is more than one source of dust, sampling may be required to find which dust sources are most significant. Then, efforts to reduce dust can be concentrated where they will have the most impact. This chapter explains how to perform dust source sampling. It describes two kinds of instruments that are available and discusses their limitations. It explains how environmental variables such as concentration gradients, dust dilution, and production changes can impact dust measurements. It also suggests practical ways to improve the validity of dust source measurements under adverse conditions, such as high-velocity airflow or the presence of water mist in the air. [Dust source sampling at coal mine longwalls and at tunnels is more complicated. Chapters 3 and 7 have more information on sampling in those circumstances.] TWO KINDS OF INSTRUMENTS FOR MEASURING DUST Gravimetric samplers. The conventional gravimetric sampler is a good device for measuring dust because it is the instrument used for compliance measurements. This dust sampler consists of an air pump, a small cyclone that separates out the respirable size fraction of the dust cloud, and a filter to collect the respirable dust. In coal mines, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)-approved gravimetric sampler uses a 10-mm Dorr-Oliver cyclone operating at an airflow of 2.0 L/min [30 CFR78 74 (2002)]. A correction factor of 1.38 is applied to make the results consistent with the U.K. MRE sampler, the instrument on which the 2.0 mg/m3 coal dust standard is based.

Jan 6, 2003

In This Chapter [Ventilation: dilution and displacement Water sprays: wetting and airborne capture Water additives: foam and wetting agents Dust collectors: filtration efficiency and inlet capture efficiency Reducing the generation of dust for cutting, drilling, blasting, crushing, and conveying] [This chapter will give you a general perspective on what works or doesn’t work. The chapter will also help if your dust control problem doesn’t fit any of the circumstances described in later chapters. ] This chapter describes the three major control methods used to reduce airborne dust in tunnels and underground mines: ventilation, water, and dust collectors. It also describes methods to reduce the generation of dust, so less has to be removed from the mine air. The ventilation methods provide the best use of air in the vicinity of workers and in the vicinity of dust sources. In this sense, the methods described are local ventilation methods. Most of the emphasis is on so-called displacement ventilation because it is the most effective dust control technique available. The section on water sprays outlines the dual role of sprays—wetting and airborne capture—and describes why wetting is more important. It also corrects some of the misconceptions about spray effectiveness and describes circumstances where sprays can actually increase the dust exposure of workers. The section on dust collectors outlines the circumstances under which dust collectors can be expected to function effectively. It also describes some common design and maintenance problems. The final section describes how to reduce the amount of dust that gets into the air in the first place, since once the dust is airborne it is always harder to control.

Jan 6, 2003

By Jay F. Colinet, John A. Organiscak

In This Chapter [Which dust source to address first How much air and water are needed Keeping dust out of the walkway Moving workers upwind Dealing with the stage loader-crusher Gob and wing curtains to aid airflow The shearer-clearer system Modified support movement practices and Dust control for future longwalls ] Controlling longwall dust is not easy. Longwall production levels are high, and there are several different sources of dust to contend with. If dust levels are high, the initial effort should be devoted to finding which source is the cause. Then, efforts to reduce dust can be concentrated where they will have the most impact. To control dust at longwalls, a large amount of ventilation air and spray water must be used. The water must be sprayed correctly so as not to blow dust into the walkway. Techniques to change local airflow patterns can be helpful. The shearer-clearer, as well as gob and wing curtains, are examples of such techniques. DECIDING WHICH DUST SOURCE TO ADDRESS FIRST [If a longwall is out of compliance with dust standards, knowing where the extra dust is coming from helps to get back in compliance quickly.]

Jan 6, 2003

By Jozef S. Stachulak

In This Chapter [Ore pass dust control Drill dust control Blasting dust control Conveyor belt dust control Transfer point and crusher dust control Roadheader dust control and How much ventilation air to use] This chapter discusses respirable dust control in underground hard-rock mines. These mines use a wide variety of extraction methods, but they have many common dust sources and dust control needs. Ore passes, drills, blasting, conveyor belts, transfer points, crushers, and load-haul-dump operations can be major sources of dust. Roadheaders, which are sometimes used in hard-rock mines, produce dust in large quantities. For the most part, dust in hard-rock mines is controlled with ventilation air, water sprays, and dust collectors. It is also important to prevent dust from getting into the air in the first place. Good dust control practices will reduce overall mine ventilation requirements. [Lack of maintenance is the main source of dust problems in hard-rock mines according to Rodgers [1974], who conducted a dust survey of hard-rock mines several decades ago. Rodgers found that spray systems had clogged sprays, dust enclosures had improperly fitted skirts, and ductwork was plugged and had leaks. Today’s mines have better maintenance programs (we think), but when dust levels are high, maintenance is still the first topic to address.] The Mining Association of Canada [MAC 1980] and Knight [1980] provide good general information about hard-rock dust control. For conveyor belt dust control, Goldbeck and Marti [1996] and Swinderman et al. [1997] are valuable sources of information.

Jan 6, 2003

By Gerrit V. R. Goodman

In This Chapter [Design and operation of machine-mounted scrubbers Dust control with scrubbers and blowing ventilation Dust control with scrubbers and exhaust ventilation Dust control with exhaust ventilation and no scrubber Dust control methods common to all continuous miner sections Dust control for roof bolters] This chapter explains how to control dust at continuous miner sections in coal mines where the main dust sources are continuous miners and roof bolters. In relation to dust, there are three categories of continuous miner faces depending on the type of ventilation and whether or not a machine-mounted dust scrubber is used. These are— 1. Mining machines with dust scrubbers used with blowing face ventilation 2. Mining machines with dust scrubbers used with exhaust face ventilation 3. Mining machines without scrubbers used with exhaust face ventilation The approach to dust control is somewhat different in all three of these. However, there are many dust control features (such as the need to provide adequate airflow) common to all continuous miner sections. For workers at roof bolter faces, there are two dust sources: 1. Dust from the continuous miner when it is upwind. 2. A malfunctioning dust collector on the bolter, which allows dust to escape DESIGN AND OPERATION OF MACHINE-MOUNTED SCRUBBERS [Almost all new continuous miners are equipped with scrubbers. When the dust is excessive, it is possible that the scrubber needs some maintenance.]

Jan 6, 2003

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