UNSW

Faculty of Engineering School of Mining Engineering

ENGINEERING DESIGN AND INNOVATION

ENGG1000

GROUP 4 FINAL REPORT: THE DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT AND

EVALUATION OF THE DUST EXTRACTION FILTER FAN SYSTEM

10 March—26 May 2011

Students:

Zachary Buggy—z3378215

Yanpeng Chen—z3329171

Oliver Davies—z3376104

Ross Ireland—z3373111

Mario Krishnandanu – z3358799

Leonard Littlewood – z3374718

Marius Ma—z3372980

Anya Ramani– z3372738

Mentor:

Lalit Kumar

Submitted to Dr Chris Daly

26 May 2011

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY I hereby declare that this submission is the teams own work and to the best of our

knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person

without proper reference. Any contribution made to this report by others, is explicitly

acknowledged in the report. The team also declare that the intellectual content of this

report is the product of our own work, except to the extent that assistance from others

in the project’s design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic

expression is acknowledged.

SUMMARY

The following report outlines a possible solution to the current dust problem facing

Longwall coal shearer operators by Duster Buster Ventilation. Coal dust is

contaminated with toxic and radioactive elements such as arsenic, cadmium, mercury,

uranium, thorium and radium. Continued exposure may lead to long term illness and

disease such as fibroid phthisis, coal workers' pneumoconiosis, bronchitis and cancer.

The Dust Extraction Filter Fan System (D.E.F.F.S) is a Longwall coal shearer

attachment that aims to reduce the amount of coal dust in an underground Longwall

coal mine. D.E.F.F.S incorporates the use of an advanced spray and filter system

which extracts dust around the coal cutting face.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The team wish to thank Lalit Kumar for not only mentoring us but providing the

group with valuable input and advice throughout the duration of this project.

I

CONTENTS

SUMMARY.......................................................................................................

1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................

1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT.................................................................................

2. FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM STATEMENT....................................

3. CONSTRAINTS AND OBJECTIVES..............................................................

4. DESIGN SOLUTION 1.....................................................................................

4.1. DESIGN SOLUTION 1A....................................................................................................

4.2. DESIGN SOLUTION 1B....................................................................................................

5. DESIGN SOLUTION 2.....................................................................................

5.1 DESIGN SOLUTION 2A......................................................................................................

5.2 DESIGN SOLUTION 2B........................................................................................................

6. DESIGN SOLUTION 3.....................................................................................

6.1 DESIGN SOLUTION 3A...................................................................................

7. ISSUES...............................................................................................................

7.1 COAL DUST PARTICLE CALUCLATIONS.....................................................................

7.2 ISSUES RELATING TO COAL DUST................................................................................

8. FINAL DESIGN SOLUTION..........................................................................

8.1 FILTER....................................................................................................................... ..........

8.2 SPRAY SYSTEM.................................................................................................................

9. ATTATCHIGN THE D.E.F.F.S TO THE LONGWALL COAL SHEARER..

10. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................

APPENDIX 1: DESIGN SKETCHES..................................................................

APPENDIX 2: TEAM DECISION MATRIX......................................................

APPENDIX 3: MORPH CHART.........................................................................

APPENDIX 4: SPRAY NOZZLE DIAGRAMS...................................................

I

1

1

1

2

3

3

17

3

4

4

5

5

5

5

6

6

8

8

8

9

8

10

14

15

16

APPENDIX 5: D.E.F.F.S BUDGET ESTIMATION............................................

APPENDIX 6: FILTER COMPARISON TABLE...............................................

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................

REFERENCE LIST..............................................................................................

17

18

18

19

1

1. INTRODUCTION

This report analyses current methods of coal dust reduction and compares them with

our system. Dust suppression practices involving liquids are amongst the most highly

employed methods used in the industry. Currently sprays are employed in several

locations including: the conveyor belt, the tailgate end of the coal shearer and

directional spray manifolds. By comparison, the D.E.F.F.S involves a single spray

that simultaneously attracts and contains airborne dust particles. Testing has proven

the system to reduce dust emissions to levels that meet the most stringent health,

safety and environmental legislation. Additionally, the system has the ability to

reclaim hazardous dust and transform such into profitable ore with limited water

usage, and as a result, the system provides a desirable return on the investment.

1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT This is a problem statement devised to aid us in finding a solution to the current coal

dust problem; a device required to ensure health and safety by efficiently extracting

dust particles at a long wall coal face.

2. FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM STATEMENT

The creation of a design solution involved developing the problem statement. This

process was undertaken as a group via enumeration.As a team the objectives and

parameters were brainstormed whilst constructing two mind maps allowing

components to branch off reflecting our thoughts. Soon the team provided individual

problem statements which were discussed in subgroups whilst considering the

effectiveness, assumptions, and necessity of some statements. During this discussion

the issue of the length and the requirement of a concise assessment of client needs

affirmed the removal of the sentence. Similarly, a discourse took place regarding

definition of problem in contrast to hinted solution in regards to identifying design

elements. Stipulating constraints and objectives involved the rejection of alternatives

or additional options and arriving at those that would satisfice. Enumeration and

subsequent discussion involved all team members describing voicing out proposals.

This process resulted in a lengthy comprehensive list of all functions, objectives, and

options available for which the final concept was based upon. The next process

involved each member sketching out a labeled design concept on the whiteboard

allowing members to visualise the solution and note down their opinions. After each

sketch, opinions were stated by team members and the concepts were evaluated

against others. Visualisation produced creative opinions regarding features such as the

required thickness of the fan and the type of fan- centrifugal or axial.

A morphological chart helped produce analytical alternatives as functions of the designed

device and their possible means for realising each function were listed in a matrix format.

The chart then classified the lists in an orderly manner and members were told to join lines

combining their most favourable options and justify their reasoning.

Once potential solutions were narrowed to three, the glass box method was embraced as

options were examined in regards to the inputs of the operation and the primary or secondary

outputs generated. The team developed, a morph chart representing all the possible solutions

2

that were considered. By calibrating potential combinations of options a range of concepts

were gathered and each was separately evaluated against cost, time, technicality

characteristics, need, and efficiency. A team decision matrix was used to evaluate various

concepts whilst eliminating poor concepts. Members added concepts to this matrix whilst

judging other proposals. The process proved very efficient and quickly narrowed the

acceptable concept designs from five to three. Discussions then took place regarding the

weighting of various aspects.

3. CONSTRAINTS AND OBJECTIVES

Our main objective was to design a device capable of safely addressing the issue of

coal dust exposure to longwall coal shearer operators working within an underground

mine. The Dust Extraction Filter Fan System aimed to

Divert air borne dust clouds away from shearer operators

Reduce dust particle density on the pathway through the use of an auxiliary

fan capable of manipulating the air flow around the front ranging arm of a

long wall shearer

Have improved usability such as a stop start button on the shearer remote

Be economically feasible

The D.E.F.F.S would be implemented within a Longwall coal mine for extended

periods of time. Such an environment would require the device to be

Durable

Able to withstand high temperatures

Capable of partially controlling the surrounding airflow

Safe

Easily accessible

Dust would be inhaled into the preconditioning fogging chamber via the intake duct

by a high powered extraction fan. Here it is sprayed with high pressure water system

which causes the dust to cluster and fall through the air locking filter onto the

Armoured Flexible Conveyer (AFC). Through the use of dual stage filters, the dust

will be retained by the device where it would be condensed and no longer be airborne.

As the D.E.F.F.S needed to produce a strong suction it was crucial to ensure the

device remained airtight throughout the operation. An air locking system was

implemented to solve this issue. This system works by having two sliding panels to

direct the captured dust without impeding suction. The top platform then slid open

scraping against the second half of the fixed platform allowing the sludge to drop onto

the bottom platform. Once the sludge has

been transferred to the bottom the top platform

closes to become airtight again whilst the

bottom platform opens up allowing the coal

sludge to fall onto the AFC tracks.

Figure 2: Bottom platform open allowing sludge to fall onto AFC tracks.

3

4. DESIGN SOLUTION 1 The Dust Extraction Filter Fan System aimed to extract dust produced by Longwall

coal shearers throughout cutting operations. This was achieved through using a

powerful fan to create a low-pressure system that would force the air born dust

particles into the device and towards a filter. Dust would be sprayed with a fine mist

of high-pressure water causing all dust to clump together in the spacing between the

initial rock guard filter. Saturated dust then fell through the base of the device and

onto an AFC. The filter would be of sufficient weave size to catch any leftover dust

particles that pass through this spray stage.

4.1 DESIGN SOLUTION 1A The recent creation of the Dyson bladeless fan was an option our group had

considered for the D.E.F.F.S. As the Dyson fan would be water resistant, unaffected

by dust and small flying coal chunks that could overtime damage a bladed fan ,

require much less maintenance and be more powerful as there would be no need for

filters. However, an issue that prevented it from being incorporated into our design

was the fact that it was relatively very expensive whilst an industrial model meeting

the required standards was currently unavailable.

4.2 DESIGN SOLUTION 1B

A centrifugal fan however consisted of additional mechanical parts in motion which

increased the initial weight of the D.E.E.F.S pollution.

The D.E.E.F.S would be attached to the shearer. The dimensions are 1m x 1m x 1m

however the weight must be viable so as to not impede the operations of the shearer.

Therefore, rather than employing stainless steel blades cast aluminum shall be used

for the blades to reduce the weight of the D.E.E.F.S. Cast aluminum was evaluated

against, galvanized iron, and stainless steel:

Cast Aluminum Galvanized Iron Stainless Steel

Cost efficient

High degree of

durability

Durable for many

years

Lighter

Likely to corrode

Likely to rust

Zinc coating prevents

mineral deposits

High corrosion

resistance

Fire and heat resistance

Long-term value

Heavier in comparison

to aluminum

Table 2: Material comparisons

4

The blades shall be curved at an angle of 45degrees to decrease the air resistance

experienced. This follows that air resistance increases as the surface area increases. If

the surface area is reduced, the friction sufficiently decreases.

Furthermore, the blades shall require maintenance as water can come in contact with

the blades causing issues such as rusting. However, as cast aluminum is utilized this

factor sufficiently decreases, as a chemical reaction between water and aluminum

metal is rare.

Steel is an alloy made of iron and carbon. The carbon atoms in steel greatly increase

the strength of the metal. They prevent the iron atoms in the crystal lattice from

moving over one another. The carbon atoms in steel however, greatly decrease the

ability of iron to resist corrosion. In the presence of oxygen and water a series of

internal galvanic cells or batteries are created. The carbon impurities become the site

of reduction.

2Fe(s) + 2H2O(l) + O2(g) 2Fe2+

(aq) + 4OH-(aq)

Fe2+

(aq) + 2OH-(aq) Fe(OH)2(s)

Fe(OH)2(s) = O2 Fe(OH)3(s)

Fe(OH)3(s) = dehydrates Fe2O3.nH2O(s) – rust

In contrast to steel and galvanised iron, aluminum does not rust, as rusting only

occurs in relation to ferric metals. However, it will oxidize resulting in a skin of

aluminum oxide coating the metal, protecting it from further oxidation. Thus, the risk

of water reacting with the blades is not severe. Cast aluminum blades were used to

reduce the overall weight. Consequently, thin metal vanes easily transmit sound when

excited by acoustic energy produced by the motor thereby increasing noise pollution.

However future Dust Buster Ventilation products may combat this issue via the use of

noise and vibration dampening sheets in attempt to resolve this quandary. For e.g.

INC DC-10 is a visco-elastic liquid sound dampening compound used to reduce noise

radiated by vibration or shock excited metal surfaces. However, to embrace such

solutions, an assessment of cost and evaluations regarding further options available

must be re-undertaken.

5. DESIGN SOLUTION 2

5.1 DESIGN SOLUTION 2A

In this variation of the D.E.F.F.S, a wiper attached to the filter is employed to wipe

the wet dust off the filter and onto the conveyor belt below, after the dust has been

vacuumed through the mesh and settled onto the filter. Dust particles and the wiper

come in contact with the filter and the impact from dust and the friction caused

between the surfaces of the wiper and filter can gradually wear the filter and wiper

away. The team decided that the wiper solution would be too difficult to implement

for several reasons including: the increased need for maintenance because of more

moving parts; an additional motor would have to be installed to make the wiper

function and also because the wiper would inhibit the performance of the fan as well

as possibly forcing some dust past the filter.

Table 3: Chemical formula for the oxidation of iron

5

5.2 DESIGN SOLUTION 2B

Prototype 2b introduced the concept of a high pressure spray substitute in place of the

wiper. Tests had shown as the dust was vacuumed towards the filter it was sprayed by

a high pressure, full cone spiral spray nozzle located underneath the ceiling of the

system. The spray nozzle’s wide angle of spray was to be directed downwards

capturing the dust particles and forcing them down onto the conveyor belt below. The

nozzle maintained a pressure of 551 kPa and served as a dual purpose where it not

only forced exhausted dust onto the conveyor belt, but the wide angle of spray also

cleaned the inside components of the system. This gave design solution 2 a great

advantage over design solution 1 where the system had to be externally maintained.

Design solution 2 showed promise as further testing revealed only a low percentage of

dust was capable of reaching the filter. Hence dust was to be sprayed onto the

conveyor belt immediately, allowing the filter to encounter less impact and friction

caused by dust. In addition, the filter also featured less wear when compared to design

solution 1. This was because there was no wiper coming in contact with the filter.

6. DESIGN SOLUTION 3 The D.E.F.F.S design solution 3 proposed to deliver water through an integrated spray

nozzles system which not only prevented newly formed dust particles becoming

airborne but allowed for the manipulation of direct airflow whilst wetting the coal.

6.1 DESIGN SOLUTION 3A Wetting agents such as surfactants are chemical water additives that reduce the

surface tension of water making it easier for the water droplet to wet a dust particle.

Such agents require a relatively long reaction time, due to their effectiveness in

reducing dust generation during coal cutting operations.

6.2 DESIGN SOLUTION 3B Foam application will suppress dust close to its source and prevent it from becoming

airborne. The use of a properly designed foam application system can reduce

exposures and lower water consumption. However, tests have shown that foam is

more effective when applied directly at the point of dust generation through the

shearer drum sprays rather than through external sprays. However required

modifications to the shearer would present problematic issues.

Both options of this concept include issues, which could not be resolved within a span

of twelve weeks. Thus after much contemplation design solution 3 was completely

discarded for this engineering task.

7. ISSUES An issue regarding high velocity coal particles colliding and friction between particles

arose, as coal is known to be combustible. A question regarding whether or not coal

dust particles attracted by an exhaust fan at a speed of 2.032m/s would conduct

electricity after colliding with the stainless steel filter.

6

7.1 COAL DUST PARTICLE CALCULATIONS:

It can be seen from equation 2 that coal dust particles shall gain negligible kinetic

energy. When particles collide with the filter, kinetic energy is transformed into heat

energy.

Thus, it can be seen from equations 3 and 4 that this issue is of little significance.

7.2 ISSUES RELATING TO COAL DUST

Coal dust suspended in air is explosive. Coal dust has a far greater surface area per

unit weight than individual masses of coal; hence it is more susceptible to

spontaneous combustion. Friction between particles drawn towards the fan can cause

explosions as previously witnessed. The worst mining accidents in history have been

caused by coal dust explosions, such as the disaster at Senghenydd in South Wales in

1913 in which 439 miners died (SWPM, 2005 ‘The Senghenydd Coal Mining

Disaster’ [online] available from <http://www.southwalespolicemuseum.org.uk>) and

the Courrières mine disaster in Northern France which killed 1099 miners. (Johnson,

B, 2011, ‘World’s Worst Mining Disasters’ [online] available from

<http://worldnews.about.com>) However, high-pressured sprays releasing water

placed vertically on top of the arriving particles significantly reduce the

combustibility of the particles.

Initially the coal particles were going to be collected by the D.E.F.F.S then directed

away from the ventilation system. However, this would involve a separate system to

be designed for the disposal of coal dust increasing the cost feasibility and technical

feasibility as large amounts of air would have to be thrust out. It was considered that

dust particles could be directed towards the retreating air in the ventilation system

however if the particles were to be retrieved through the air they would also have to

be recycled. Dr. Mimar Genim in 1990 suggested that discarded coal dust should be

reused or rehabilitated for profit. (OSHA,1996. ‘Occupational Safety and Health

Guideline for Coal Dust (> 5% SiO2)’ [online] available from

< http://www.osha.gov> Thus a more efficient design was agreed upon. The

Mass (Kg)

Velocity (m/s)

Table 4: dust particle mass and velocity

(1)

(2)

KE = 0

Heat = 0

(3)

(4)

7

D.E.F.F.S was to be placed vertically above the conveyor belt, which retrieves coal

hence the solidified dust particles shall be removed from the mine and be treated as

output. Water entering the motor may cause electrical failure and pose a serious

hazard to the operations as the fan motor was supplied by the main power unit also

supplying voltage to the shearer. Thus, to prevent such a dire situation a separate

motor encasing has been designed away from the fan and the nozzles.

A doubt arose regarding the impact of the knit mesh filter upon the suction ability of

the fan. However it can be seen from tables 4 and 5 that the fan is sufficient.

A significant issue arose whilst composing design sketches. As proposed, if the

bottom panel were to be left open for solidified dust to be discarded onto the conveyor

belt, the fans ability would be hindered. Suction occurs only within an airtight

chamber thus whilst collecting particles within the fogging chamber, the bottom panel

shall be sealed. Hence, an air locking system was proposed to ensure the chamber was

airtight until the particles were gathered upon the platform. Once a certain amount of

particles have been gathered the panel shall retreat between the closely kept upper and

lower platforms so as to ‘scrape’ the particles off and allowing them to descent onto

the conveyor belt.

Leading drum dust

measurements

Length

(m)

Width

(m)

Height

(m)

Volume

(m3)

Original 4.5 3 3 40.5

Allowing for error 7.5 3 3 67.5

Table 5: Dust volume measurements from the Longwall shearer leading drum

Shearer Cutting Speed

(m/s)

Handling Volume (m3)

Volume intake per minute

(m3/min)

3.4 67.5 1650

Table 6: D.E.F.F.S Dust handling volume

8

8.0 FINAL DESIGN SOLUTION

The D.E.F.F.S will be bolted behind the ranging arm and whilst operating will extract

dust from the air. The final D.E.F.F.S concept was equipped with a mesh guard in

front of the intake duct designed to stop damaging debris from entering the D.E.E.F.S.

The D.E.E.F.S has an extraction fan capable of drawing dust created by the shearer

into the D.E.E.F.S intake duct. Dust is then drawn into a preconditioning fogging

chamber and onto a knit mesh filter.

8.1 FILTER The D.E.F.F.S filter systems were subject to an evaluation between the knit-mesh

filter, the AEEC Dust Collector, and Fabric Filter. Once complete a comparative

review of each of the three options was completed, as seen in table 6,Appendix 6, the

knit mesh filter was agreed upon as its advantages outweighed benefits of other

options.

Once the dust particles have proceeded through the knit mesh filter, clean air is then

discharged from the extraction fan and through the exhaust duct past the coal face.

A high-pressure spray will then remove all dust particles from the filter whilst

activating the preconditioning fogging chamber. Thus the D.E.F.F.S will remain

compact resulting in less interference with the movement and function of the ranging

arm and drum of the Longwall shearer. The final D.E.E.F.S was to consist of a mesh

rock guard capable of stopping any large debris and an intake duct leading to the

spray and filter system. Finally the extraction fan, motor housing and exhaust duct

were to be located behind the filter system. The mesh rock guard was seen to prevent

larger material from entering the D.E.F.F.S effectively eliminating the potential for

damaging debris to effect components within the system. The extraction fan produces

a suction velocity capable of producing up to 10 cubic metres per second of air. Once

dust particles leave the mesh and intake duct, they proceed into the preconditioning

fogging chamber where a spiral, full cone, high flow sprayer dampens the dust

causing it to fall onto the armoured flexible conveyer. The sprayer will be made of

brass and will spray the dust with water.

8.2 SPRAY SYSTEM A high-pressure spray operating at less than 1724kPa was to be employed. As

research conducted by J.A. Organiscak and D.E. Pollock Mining engineer and

mechanical engineer, respectively, (Organiscak, J.A and Pollock D.E,2007

‘Development of a lower-pressure water-powered spot scrubber for mining applications’ [online] available from http://www.cdc.gov) demonstrated that high

water pressure is advantageous for confined spray dust capture. Hence it is

detrimental to integrate the D.E.F.F.S with current dust capture technology, as seen

with unconfined water spray systems commonly used on mining machinery.

Laboratory and underground research have shown that as the number of spray nozzles

and the water pressure are increased for unconfined spray systems, the dust capture

effectiveness per gallon of water is reduced (Organiscak, J.A and Pollock D.E, 2007

9

‘Development of a lower-pressure water-powered spot scrubber for mining applications’ [online] available from http://www.cdc.gov).Thus only one nozzle

will be utilized vertically above the entering dust. The improved dust capture from

smaller high velocity droplets produced by higher spray pressures is offset by the

additional dilution from the spray-induced airflow within the unconfined space. This

results in reduced residence time or droplet dust interaction. It was seen that more

dust knockdown for unconfined sprays was achieved through the use of a higher

water volume rather than pressure. According to Jayararnan in 1984 operating

unconfined water sprays at high pressures can also cause undesirable localized air

turbulence, pushing contaminated dusty air to worker locations (continuous miner

rollback). The nozzle shall involve an orifice diameter of 1.6 mm (0.063 in.). Its

manufacturer's flow specifications are 0.5 to 3320 gpm (2.26 to 10700 L/min) of

water flow at 551 kPa gauge pressure with a calculated discharge coefficient of 0.74

(actual flow divided by theoretical orifice diameter flow). ((Organiscak, J.A and

Pollock D.E, 2007 ‘Development of a lower-pressure water-powered spot scrubber for mining applications’ [online] available from http://www.cdc.gov). Any

residual dust was to be drawn onto the filter where high pressure sprays will then

clean the filter resulting in all dust particles falling onto the armoured flexible

conveyer. The clean air was then to be discharged by the fan out of the exhaust duct

and along the long wall coal face.

9. ATTACHING THE D.E.F.F.S TO THE LONGWALL COAL SHEARER The D.E.E.F.S will be attached behind the ranging arm of the longwall coal shearer

by employing inspection cover bolts of diameter 16mm which will be replaced with

bolts long enough to secure the duct in place. The D.E.E.F.S was to be made from a

minimum of 10mm steel for the intake duct up to the face of the ranging arm with a

16mm steel sheet over the ranging arm to further strengthen and protect the duct. The

preconditioning fogging chamber, fan housing and exhaust duct only required 6mm

steel to protect these component as they are covered by the shearer covers. This

D.E.E.F.S system will aim to remove 92% of dust produced by the Longwall coal

shearer. Through rigorous testing and calculations the D.E.F.F.S was seen to

significantly reduce the risk to miners working in an underground Longwall mining

environment.

10. CONCLUSION The D.E.F.F.S prototype had been designed to assist in the upkeep of OHS

regulations aiming to achieve a more cost, technical and viable method in comparison

to the current systems available for dust reduction within a Longwall coal mine.

Several evaluations regarding cost, time, and technical feasibility has established that

the D.E.F.F.S has met the intended objectives. However, in the future improvements

in regards to the future modifications to the design solution could further enhance the

ability of this product. For e.g. if the time constraint was reduced an emulsion could

be employed in comparison to the spraying of H20 as the use of a chemically

compounded liquid would increase the rate of airborne capture. Overall, the

D.E.E.F.S ultimately attains the established goals of a device required to ensure health

and safety by efficiently extracting dust particles at a long wall coal face whilst

ensuring time, cost, and technical feasibility

10

APPENDIX 1: DESIGN SKETCHES

Figure 3: Front view of D.E.F.F.S

Figure 4: Rear view of the D.E.F.F.S

11

Figure 5: Side view of the D.E.F.F.S

Figure 6: D.E.F.F.S airtight chamber component

12

Figure 7: D.E.F.F.S airtight chamber component top platform open

Figure 8: D.E.F.F.S airtight chamber component bottom component open. Sludge falls to A.F.C track

13

Open

Figure 9: D.E.F.F.S airtight chamber component bottom component open. Sludge falls to A.F.C track

14

APPENDIX 2: TEAM DECISION MATRIX

Table 7: Team Decision Matrix

15

APPENDIX 3: TEAM MORPH CHART

Function Options

Cut Coal Solar Drum with

cutting

All Electric

Extract Dust Fan

(pneumatics)

Sprays

(emulsion)

Filter Scraper

Control Airflow Extraction

Fan

System in place

to control

airflow pattern

X X

Transport Coal AFC X X X

Operations and

Controls

Remote

Control

Manual Automated

System

X

Power Supply Mains only X X

Storage Discarded Collected and

processed

X X

Table 8: Team Morph Chart

16

APPENDIX 4: SPRAY NOZZLE DIAGRAMS

Figure 10: Spray Nozzle designs. Source: MSHA (1999)

17

APPENDIX 5: D.E.F.F.S BUDGET ESTIMATIONS

Table 9: D.E.F.F.S Dimensions

Table 10: D.E.F.F.S material budget estimations

18

APPENDIX 6: FILTER COMPARISON TABLE

Table 11: Filter comparison table

19

REFERENCE LIST Boley, B. 1997. ‘Overview of Motor Types Tutorial’. [online] Available from:

http://www.oddparts.com/acsi/motortut.htm#Variety. [Accessed 29 April 2011]

Cypher International Ltd. 2002. ‘Mining and Industrial Operations’. [online]

Available from :http://www.cypherltd.com/ds-mining.html. [Accessed 15 April 2011]

Humphrey, D. 2003. ‘Stone Dust Requirements’. [online] Available from: <

http://www.acarp.com.au/abstracts.aspx?repId=C10018 >, [Accessed 14 April 2011]

Greys Online. 2011. ‘GEC 20kw 3 phase induction motor’. [online] Available from: <

http://www.graysonline.com/lot/0066-67628/transport-trucks-and-trailers/gec-20kw-

3-phase-induction-motor. [Accessed 07 May 2011]

Johnson, B, 2011, ‘World’s Worst Mining Disasters’ [online] Available from

< http://worldnews.about.com >. [Accessed 17 April 2011]

KnitMesh Ltd. 2005. ‘Filters’. [online] Available from:

<http://www.knitmeshtechnologies.com/datacentre-pdf/fb.ppt >. [Accessed 13 May

2011]

Kocsis, C and Hardcastle, S. 2011. ‘Heat Study and Modelling of Future Climatic

Conditions at Coleman/McCreedy East Mine – Vale Inco’. [online] Available from:

< www.smenet.org/uvc/mineventpapers/ppt/031.ppt >. [Accessed 07 May 2011]

MSHA. 1999. ‘Practical Ways to Reduce Exposure to Coal Dust in Longwall Mining

A Toolbox’ . [online] Available at:

< http://www.msha.gov/S&Hinfo/longwall/lwtoolbox.pdf> [Accessed 13 May 2011]

NSW Government Health . 2010. ‘Mine dust and you’. [online] Available at:

< http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/factsheets/environmental/mine_dust.html >,

[Accessed 20 March 2011]

Organiscak, J.A and Pollock D.E,2007 ‘Development of a lower-pressure water-powered spot scrubber for mining applications’ [online] available from < http://www.cdc.gov >. [Accessed 21 April 2011] OSHA,1996. ‘Occupational Safety and Health Guideline for Coal Dust (> 5% SiO2)’

[online] available from < http://www.osha.gov >. [Accessed 17 April 2011]

SWPM, 2005 ‘The Senghenydd Coal Mining Disaster’ [online] available from

< http://www.southwalespolicemuseum.org.uk >, [Accessed 13 April 2011]

Tomlinson, A. 2008. ‘New research to scrub longwall dust’. [online] Available from:

< http://www.longwalls.com/storyview.asp?storyid=264548§ionsource=s49 >.

[Accessed 10 April 2011].