Search Documents

By AIME AIME

A LUSTY baby of the Institute, the Coal Division, showed that it had acquired a full set of teeth and was capable of man's work at the Division meeting at Fairmont, W. Va., on March 26 and 27. At this second of a series of field meetings, the first of which was held in Pittsburgh last fall, the industry in the East was represented from top to bottom and good humor and enthusiasm were the predominant notes. West Virginians are always good hosts and this meeting would have proved the statement to any inclined to doubt it. The spacious auditorium of the Fairmont Hotel was arranged for the technical sessions, the hotel being headquarters for the meeting. About a hundred and twenty-five representatives were registered and in attendance when Thomas G. Fear, chairman, opened the morning session at 10 o'clock Mr. Fear first introduced Howard Eavenson, vice-chairman of the morning program, who, as chairman of the Coal Division, had labored long and cheerfully to make the meeting successful. Mr. Eavenson talked briefly on what the organization was doing, pointing out that these field meetings were designed to bring the members into closer touch with the parent Institute and give the younger engineers in the field a better opportunity to participate in the work the Institute is doing. He congratulated the various committees for their work in promoting the meeting.

Jan 1, 1931

Jan 1, 1940

Jan 1, 1936

Jan 1, 1938

Jan 1, 1947

Jan 1, 1932

Jan 1, 1934

Jan 1, 1949

Jan 1, 1936

Jan 1, 1940

Jan 1, 1938

Jan 1, 1947

By AIME AIME

UNQUESTIONABLY the Coal Division has never had a meeting in which so many outstanding technical papers were presented of immediate practical application to problems of personnel, mining, safety, preparation, combustion, and carbonization. Should there have been those present with the lingering idea that all that was needed for success in the coal industry was a strong back and a weak mind they must have had a rude awakening.

Jan 1, 1942

By THOMAS G. FEAR

THE COAL DIVISION started its share of the annual meeting Monday morning with a study of coal classi fication. A. C. Fieldner was in the chair. The report of the tellers of the ballot for division chairman, stating that Thomas G. Fear had been elected to that office, was read by M. D. Cooper. Mr. Fear acknowledged the honor in a few words. In reviewing the history of the Coal Classification Committee the chairman pointed out that this was its third symposium, the last previous one having been held at the 1930 Annual Meeting. Throughout its work the com¬mittee has had the active cooperation of the Canadian workers who are interested in the subject which should result in a uniform scheme of classification in Canada and the United States. F. E. Lathe, of the National Research Council, Ottawa, abstracted the first two papers of the session entitled "Determination of the Alkali-Soluble Ulmins in Coal," by Edgar Stansfield and K. C. Gilbart, and "Moisture Determination for Coal Classification," by the same authors. The third paper "Condition of Water in Coals of Various Ranks"' was presented by its author, A. W. Gauger. Written discussions of these papers were presented by H. C. Porter and Gilbert H. Cady. In the oral discussion which followed, W. T. Thom, Jr., brought out the advisability of considering age as a factor in classification. Mr. Fieldner favored retaining bed moisture as a partial classification basis, stating that a review of many coal analyses revealed a remarkable consistency in this item in samples from a given mine particularly where the moisture content was not high. Mr. Porter pointed out that the structure and porosity of coal often have much to do with its moisture content and that these vary in different parts of a seam, particularly in anthracite. Mr. Gauger expressed doubt as to whether the Stansfield method gives the true moisture content of coal, which is needed for classification purposes.

Jan 1, 1932

By AIME AIME

COAL preparation will be the main topic discussed at the first fall meeting of the Coal Division at Pittsburgh, Sept. 11, 12 and 13, though valuation, mergers, safety, stream pollution and other topics will not' be neglected. It is particularly appropriate that the great changes taking place in preparing coal for the market should be discussed at length where in the plants of the Pittsburgh Coal Co. and others the opportunity is afforded to see on a large scale just what is being accomplished. In wartime, the United States broke all records in coal production, but, as the late Franklin K. Lane pointed out, every fifth car shipped consisted of dirt. Obviously that constituted a big bur- den on industry and, in the remaking of the business which is now taking place both in the anthracite and bituminous fields, clean coal has properly enough be- come a watchward. Central coal-cleaning plants are being erected as a part answer to the puzzled inquiry of those familiar with metal mining as to why miners of coal have so long been content with what are relatively small units of production. Gradually big collieries comparable in tonnage output to the biggest copper mines are being built, and excellent examples are to be seen near Pittsburgh. Even the age-long tradition of the coal operator in favor of the single shift is

Jan 1, 1930

By J. T. Crawford

ALTHOUGH nearly 10 pct of the total tonnage of coal produced annually within the United States is handled by bulk freighters on the Great Lakes, very little of the detail connected with it has been published other than occasional newspaper stories and publication of tonnage statistics. Of the total tonnage floated on the Lakes each year some 10,000,000 is stored and distributed from the port of Duluth Superior, at the western end of Lake Superior commonly known as the Head of the Lakes. This port has the largest single area concentration of coal docks in the world. Since this area contains the largest ore docks, the largest movable material handling bridge, the largest and highest grain elevator and the largest coal briquetting plant in the world, it is entirely fitting and proper that here also should be located the largest coal dock and what we believe to be the worlds largest clam shell. Of the sixteen coal docks operated by ten companies, five are owned and operated by the North Western-Hanna Fuel Co. which has two docks on the Superior, Wis. water-front and three docks in Duluth, Minn. It is with these five docks that we are primarily concerned. GENERAL HISTORY In the summer of 1871 a small sailing vessel entered the harbor of Duluth Superior with the first commercial coal cargo. All the coal brought up that first year did not amount to more than 3000 tons. During the year 1877 the first dock equipped for handling coal was built in Duluth. Coal receipts increased to 52,785 tons in 1879 the first year for which an official record was kept. Since then the volume of water-borne coal to the Head of the Lakes steadily increased to a maximum of 12,688,321 tons in the year 1923. This tonnage was nearly equalled in the year 1927 and the next highest tonnage recent year was in 1946 when 10,105,703 tons were unloaded. The average annual bring-up over a ten year period 1938 to 1947 was 8,605,231 tons. Approximately 30 pct of the coal unloaded at the Head of the Lakes is handled over the docks of the North Western-Hanna Fuel Co. Competition of other fuels coupled with expansion of coal fields in the mid-west have held coal receipts for Duluth-Superior at a relatively constant figure during the last eight years although the total tonnage of coal floated on the Great Lakes has more than doubled in the past 25 years. From the shovel and wheelbarrow method of unloading early cargoes to the horsepowered windlass derrick with a wooden tub was but a short step. The first movable coal handling, steam operated,

Jan 1, 1948

By D Sibthorpe

The employment of a tunnel boring machine (TBM) is the default delivery method for the realisation of traffic, utility and primary resource underground space worldwide, with hundreds of kilometres completed safely each year. This is not yet the case for the mining sector in Australia, specifically underground coal mining. The safety advantages of TBM delivery when compared to New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM) delivery, or that of drill and blast, remains unrealised.With coal access drifts ranging between 1000?m and 3000?m in length, the construction of these facilities using TBMs could be done in a fraction of the time when compared to current practice. TBM world records currently stand at 435?m/week or 1600?m/month for the 7.0?m to 10.0?m range. Resource owners and developers should embrace the opportunity to deliver access to their orebodies in only a few months, excluding machine assembly and disassembly time.There are challenges in utilising TBMs for construction of Coal access drifts, such as; TBMs generally being bespoke design, maximising capital efficiency for drift development, and geotechnical variances between projects. This paper explores safer and more cost-effective options. This paper also provides detail of how the configuration within a completed drift could be optimised to ensure all site specific needs are met with regard to future use of the drift. The paper also includes descriptions of the engineering solutions that are available for physical and atmospheric challenges specific to coal drift applications and how the TBM manufactures are adapting to the regulatory requirements are also covered.Due to downward pressure on high cost bases and ever increasing safety requirements the popularity of TBMs in the Australian mining sector can be expected to increase and eventually become the default delivery method for coal drift construction, building them cheaper, faster and?safer.CITATION:Sibthorpe, D, 2014. Coal drift construction by tunnel boring machine, in Proceedings 15th Australasian Tunnelling Conference 2014 , pp 671–682 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

Sep 17, 2014

Nickel laterite approximately 40% of the remainder caning deposits. ores are the source of the world's nickel with from sulphide ore Although laterite ores are near the surface and cheap to mine they require significantly more energy to treat than sulphide ores. The escalation of oil prices comiencing in 1973 meant that nickel laterite refineries using oil as an energy source were placed at distinct disadvantage relative to sulphide refineries or those with coal derived energy. The Queensland Nickel refinery commenced a construction programme; in 1980 to allow ore drying and power generation to be converted from oil to coal. Since late 1981 ore drying has been undertaken using heated air from two moving grate spreader grate stokers. The changeover from oil to coal drying proceeded without process disruptions. This paper discusses the plant changes required to allow the receipt of coal and the operating performance obtained from the coal fired air heaters.

Jan 1, 1987

In the USA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) does a lot of work and has provided news of interesting new developments. Marcia L. Harris describes an ?Explosibility Meter: ?In underground mines, coal dust explosions are prevented by the addition of rock dust sufficient to render the coal dust inert. Federal [US] regulations require 65% and 80% incombustible content in samples taken in intake airways and return airways, respectively, assuming a nominal coal dust size of 20% minus 200 mesh. The Coal Dust Explosibility Meter (CDEM), a hand-held instrument developed by NIOSH uses optical reflectance to measure the explosibility of a rock dust and coal dust mixture.? The CDEM is now commercially available. It provides real-time results during rock dust surveys instead of waiting weeks for laboratory results1. ?With real-time results, the potential for a disaster can be mitigated immediately. The CDEM displays the percent incombustible content as well as a colour indicating the relative explosibility of the coal and rock dust mixture. A red read-out indicates that more incombustible material is required to inert the coal and rock dust sample, while a green read-out indicates that the dust sample is sufficiently inert. When the mixture is marginally explosible, a yellow read-out is indicated. The red-yellow-green output depends upon the particle size distribution of the rock and coal dust mixture with the finer size fraction being more explosible.?

Jan 1, 2008

By Kenneth L. Cashdollar

This paper reports US Bureau of Mines (USBM) research on the explosibility of coal dusts. The purpose of this work is to improve safety in mining and other industries that process or use coal. Most of the tests were conducted in the USBM 20 litre laboratory explosibility chamber. The laboratory data show relatively good agreement with those from full-scale experimental mine tests. The parameters measured included minimum explosible concentrations, maximum explosion pressures, maximum rates of pressure rise, minimum oxygen concentrations, and amounts of limestone rock dust required to inert the coals. The effects of coal volatility and particle size were evaluated, and particle size was determined to be at least as important as volatility in determining the explosion hazard. For all coals tested, the finest sizes were the most hazardous. The coal dust explosibility data are compared to those of other hydrocarbons, such as polyethylene dust and methane gas, in an attempt to understand better the basics of coal combustion.