Search Documents

By Aarne Visnapuu

Unmodified pneumatic rock drills may have noise levels of 115 to 130 dB at the operator's position. Experimental modifications have been made to a standard drill to suppress the noise from the three main sources: the air exhaust noise, the noise radiated from the drill, and the resonance noise of the steel drill rods. A prototype model developed at the Bureau of Mines, Rolla Metallurgy Research Center, operates at a noise level below 100 dB. A close-fitting case and muffler unit, consisting of a metallic skeleton filled with viscoelastic absorber and having a durable cover, provided both muffling and noise absorption. Damping alloys were used at strategic points in the drill. Drill steel resonance noise was reduced by a constrained-layer treatment on the outside of the drill rod. The singular and combined effects of the treatments are presented in detail.

Jan 1, 1973

By P. Kovalchik

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) classifies hearing loss as a separate illness category. Hearing loss accounted for 11% of all illnesses in 2005 (U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006a). According to occupational data for coal mining provided by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) from 2000 to 2005, operators that exceeded 100% noise dosage were from only seven types of machines: auger miners, bulldozers, continuous mining machines, front end loaders, roof bolters, shuttle cars (electric) and trucks (Title 30 CFR Part 62, 2000-2005). Roof bolting machine operators rank second among all underground machine operators that exceed 100% noise dose. There are approximately 600 underground coal mines with 3,930 roof bolting machine operators (U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration, 2005; U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics,

Jan 1, 2008

By M. J. Lowe

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) studies show that 43.5% of surveyed coal preparation plant workers had noise exposures exceeding the Mine Safety and Health Administration Permissible Exposure Level. Sound levels around vibrating screens in these plants often exceed 90 dB(A). NIOSH is currently developing noise controls for horizontal vibrating screens. To characterize noise sources, NIOSH researchers performed sound pressure level (SPL) measurements on a vibrating screen at their Pittsburgh Research Laboratory. The results show that the entire screen contributes to noise below 1 kHz and the vibration mechanism housings are most significant above 1 kHz. Constrained layer damping (CLD) treatments and an enclosure were used to reduce mechanism housing noise. These were evaluated using sound power level measurements according to ISO 3744. The CLD treatments reduced the A-weighted sound power level by 3.1 dB in the 1 to 10 kHz one-third-octave bands. A panel-on-frame vibration mechanism enclosure using various types of panels further reduced the A-weighted sound power level from the CLD configuration in the 1 to 10 kHz one-third-octave bands by 3.7, 4.0, and 3.9 dB for aluminum, steel, and Dynalam panels, respectively. The combination yielded a 7 dB reduction from baseline in A-weighted sound power for the same frequency range.

Jan 1, 2010

By D. S. Yantek, L. A. Alcorn, M. J. Lowe, H. E. Camargo

U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) studies show that 43.5% of surveyed coal preparation plant workers had noise exposures exceeding the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration permissible exposure level of 90 dB(A). Sound levels around vibrating screens in these plants often exceed 90 dB(A). NIOSH is currently developing noise controls for horizontal vibrating screens. To characterize noise sources, NIOSH researchers performed sound pressure level (SPL) measurements on a vibrating screen at their Office of Mine Safety and Health Research laboratory in Pittsburgh. The results show that the entire screen contributes to noise below 1 kHz, and the vibration mechanism housings are most significant above 1 kHz. Constrained layer damping (CLD) treatments and an enclosure were used to reduce mechanism housing noise in this range from 1-10 kHz. These were evaluated using sound power level measurements according to ISO 3744. The CLD treatments reduced the A-weighted sound power level by 3.1 dB in the 1 to 10 kHz one-third-octave bands. A panel-on-frame vibration mechanism enclosure using various types of panels further reduced the A-weighted sound power level from the CLD configuration in the 1 to 10 kHz one-third-octave bands by 3.7, 4.0, and 3.9 dB for aluminum, steel, and Dynalam™ panels, respectively. The combination yielded a 7 dB reduction from baseline in A-weighted sound power for the same frequency range.

Jan 1, 2011

By Gerald J. Joy, Paul J. Middendorf

This study examines the patterns and trends in noise exposure documented in data collected by Mine Safety and Health Administration inspectors at U.S. coal mines from 1987 through 2004. During this period, MSHA issued a new regulation on occupational noise exposure that changed the regulatory requirements and enforcement policies. The data were examined to identify potential impacts from these changes. The overall annual median noise dose declined 67% for surface coal mining and 24% for underground coal mining, and the reduction in each group accelerated after promulgation of the new noise rule. However, not all mining occupations experienced a decrease. The exposure reduction was accompanied by an increase of shift length as represented by dosimeter sample duration. For coal miners exposed above the permissible exposure level, use of hearing protection devices increased from 61% to 89% during this period. Participation of miners exposed at or above the action level in hearing conservation programs rapidly reached 86% following the effective date of the noise rule. Based on inspection data, the occupational noise regulation appears to be having a strong positive impact on hearing conservation by reducing exposures and increasing the use of hearing protection devices and medical surveillance. However the increase in shift duration and resulting reduction in recovery time may mitigate the gains somewhat.

By E. R. Bauer

Prolonged exposure to noise can cause permanent damage to the auditory nerve and/or its sensory components, known as noise induced hearing loss (NIHL). It is the most common occupational disease in the United States today. The Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (PRL) of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is addressing NIHL in the mining industry through several research efforts. This paper presents a general review of NIHL, the status of NIHL in mining, the results of the longwall noise surveys, and a review of the longwall engineering controls research efforts.

Jan 1, 2008

By Dennis A. Giardino, Leonard C. Marraccini

This paper surveys noise levels, noise exposure patterns, and frequency spectra found in the mining environment; the effects of mining noise on the working population; and the quantification of hearing loss in the coal mining industry. Federal mining noise regulations and the present state of the industry, with respect to noise control technology, are discussed. Examples of proven noise controls for mining are included along with measured noise reductions.

Jan 1, 1986

By David G. Chedgy

It is probably safe to assume that most operating personnel working in coal preparation plants are exposed to noise levels in excess of the MESA Noise Regulations unless they are wearing ear protection. The excessive in-plant noise levels have received little attention until recently. Noise control has not been an important design consideration in existing coal preparation plants. This situation is rapidly changing as plant owners and plant operators are requiring that new coal preparation plants be designed to provide a safe noise environment for operating personnel and also meet MESA Noise Regulations. This paper discusses the noise exposure hazards, noise generating mechanisms, and some possible noise control solutions for typical coal preparation plants.

Jan 1, 1975

By Terry L. Muldoon

On July 7, 1971, noise regulations for underground coal mines were implemented under provisions set forth in the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. These same regulations now also apply to coal mine surface facilities. In August 1971, in anticipation of these regulations, the Bureau of Mines, through the cooperation of the mine operators, conducted extensive noise surveys in three coal cleaning plants. The survey was conducted in an attempt to identify those occupations where exposures would exceed the proposed regulations.

Jan 1, 1972

By Edmund M. Warner

Any city dweller who has walked alone along a remote mine passageway has to be impressed by the eerie silence-the total absence of noise except for one's own breathing and scuffing of boots on the bottom. An underground mine can have tremendous contrasts, from complete silence to the ear piercing clatter of percussion drills working in the mine roof. Noise in underground mining machines is both useful and detrimental. Without characteristic noises that are recognizable to miners, operators would have a more difficult job operating their machines. Noise serves as a warning of approaching machinery, and changes in noise give indication that breakdowns may occur.

Jan 1, 1979

By Edmund H. Warner

Any city dweller who has walked alone along a remote mine passageway has to be impressed by the eerie silence - the total absence of noise except for ones own breathing and scuffing of boots on the bottom. An underground mine can have tremendous contrasts, from complete silence to the ear piercing clatter of percussion drills working on the mine roof. Noise in underground mining machines is both useful and detrimental. Without characteristic noises that are recognizable to miners, operators would have a more difficult job operating their machines. Noise serves as a warning of approaching machinery, and changes in noise give indication that breakdowns may occur. But excessive noise is a health hazard. In recognition of this fact, our Congress included noise exposure as a part of the "Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969". As Fig. 1 indicates, allowable noise exposure is established by specifying a time duration permitted at different noise levels. This is the well known "Walsh-Healey" criteria which governs noise exposure in many industries.

Jan 1, 1977

By Edmund M. Warner

Any city dweller who has walked alone along a remote mine passageway has to be impressed by the eerie silence-the total absence of noise except for one's own breathing and scuffing of boots on the bottom. An underpound mine can have tremendous contrasts, from complete silence to the ear piercing clatter of percussion drills working in the mine roof. Noise in underground mining machines is both useful and detrimental. Without characteristic noises that are recognizable to miners, operators would have a more difficult job operating their machines. Noise serves as a warning of approaching machinery, and changes in noise give indication that breakdowns may occur. But excessive noise is a health hazard. In recognition of this fact, our congress included noise exposure as a part of the "Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969." As [Fig. 1] indicates, allowable noise exposure is established by specifying a time duration permitted at different noise levels. This is the well known "Walsh-Healey" criteria which govern noise exposure in many industries. In most industries noise exposure is not a constant value. Noise emitted from coal mining machinery varies widely, and therefore interpretation of compliance is not a simple matter. Time, environment, instrumentation and machine productivity, as well as the designed machine characteristics affect the results. It is the purpose of this paper to present the underground coal face machinery noise problem from a manufacturer's point of view. Manufacturers are very much aware of their responsibility to alleviate the noise problem. Not infrequently, orders are received from coal operators that a given new machine must comply with "The Coal Mine Health & Safety Act" noise regulations. Such a request is indicative of the misunderstanding which exists with machine users, while indicating their desire to comply with the law. Obviously, if all machinery could be designed and used at some arbitrary low noise level, it would be possible to simplify the regulations. However, there still remains the pervasive problem of existing machines. Extensive investigation to create practical retrofit kits for existing machines, to substantially reduce noise have been only marginally successful. Certain machine mechanisms are inherent noise makers. The only really good solution is to substitute a quieter mechanism. Such overall new designs have been undertaken, and several examples are mentioned later in this paper. Before describing machine noise problems, it is necessary to define noise values. Noise levels are measured in decibels. The designation "DBA" is decibels measured on the "A" scale, or one in which the frequency sensitivity of the instrumentation is about the same as the human ear. The numbers are often misinterpreted because it is a logarithmic, rather than an arithmetic scale. In comprehending the numbers, it should be remembered that any increase of 3 dB doubles the sound power. In practical terms this means that two noises of equal power at the same distance away increases a dB reading by three. Consider [Fig. 2] showing a simplified case of a worker on a machine subject to

Jan 1, 1980

The development of a noise attenuated compressed air driven fan is described. The fan, which employs the jet reaction principle, possesses blade extension pieces which penetrate into an acoustically treated annular chamber. The dominant noise source, namely the air jets, is thereby partially suppressed. In addition, the increased moment arm of the jets leads to an improved propulsion effect which contributes to the improved aerodynamic performance of the unit.A typical measure of the improvement of this type of auxiliary mine ventilation unit is a 4 per cent increase in efficiency and a 10 dB (A) drop in sound level for a fan duty of 0·5 kPa and 1600 litre/s. This degree ofattenuation corresponds to at least halving the loudness level, a subjective noise measure.

Jan 1, 1973

By J. Alton Burks, Roy C. Bartholomae

The chain conveyor is utilized extensively in underground mining to convey raw ore, especially coal. It is estimated that several thousand loading and continuous mining machines rely on this type of conveyance. Although the chain conveyor is both efficient and highly reliable, its use is generally associated with the production of noise levels that often exceed 105 dBA at the operator's position. Thus, it is one of the most significant contributors to the occupational noise problem experienced by miners in the underground coal mining environment. Conventional engineering noise controls that result in an average reduction of 4 dBA have been previously designed and implemented. However, a novel solution involving a change in conveyor operation has been proposed that takes advantage of two aspects of conveyor noise: 1) conveyor noise has an approximately cubic dependence on conveyor chain speed and 2) due to the damping provided by coal, a full conveyor is 5 dBA quieter than an empty one. An engineering analysis has shown that a significant reduction in the operating noise level of a typical continuous miner can be achieved through the use of an adjustable speed drive automatically controlled by a coal loading sensor that maintains a full conveyor at all times. The potential reduction depends primarily on the mining conditions (coal seam thickness and the presence of either rock or water) and varies from 7-18 dBA. Other benefits to be derived from the use of a variable speed drive include reductions in power consumption, dust, and maintenance costs.

Jan 1, 1992

By Hugo E. Camargo

Noise Induced Hearing Loss is the most common occupational disease in the U.S. and of paramount importance in the mining industry. According to data for 2006 from the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Continuous Miner operators accounted for 30.2% of underground mining equipment operators with noise doses exceeding the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL). This figure becomes more significant considering that 49% of the 2006 national underground coal production was extracted using continuous mining methods. Thus, there is a clear need to reduce the sound radiated by Continuous Mining Machines. The first step towards efficient noise control of a Continuous Mining Machine requires identification of the various noise sources under controlled operating conditions. To this end, a 42-microphone phased array was used in conjunction with 4 reference microphones to sample the acoustic field of a machine in the Hemi-anechoic chamber of the Pittsburgh Research Laboratory. These data were processed using a frequency-domain beamforming algorithm to obtain acoustic maps of 5 sides of the machine. The focus of the test was on the conveyor noise since previous studies showed that operation of the conveyor is the most important contributor to the sound radiated by the machine. From the acoustic maps, the following potential areas for noise control were identified, and included: chain-tail-roller interaction, chain flight tip-side board interaction, and chain-upper deck interaction.

Jan 1, 2008

By H. E. Camargo

In an effort to decrease noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) in coal preparation plant employees, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is conduct­ing research to identify and control dominant noise sources in vibrating screen (VS) machines. To this end, acoustic measurements of the noise radiated by a dewatering VS were conducted at the Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (PRL) using microphone phased-array technology. These measurements allowed for the identification of the screen as the dominant source in the 250 Hz 1/3-octave band. The sidewalls are the major contributors in the 315 and 400 Hz bands, whereas the eccentric mechanisms and the electric motor are the dominant sources in the 800 and 1,000 Hz bands, respectively.

Jan 1, 2009

By J. Partyka, Trevor R. J. Kelly

This paper presents the results on noise testing of a fan only, as well as the results of a steel silencer and of flexible silencers that were connected directly to a fan. On-site facilities and free-field method set by the British Standards Institution were used to measure and then compare the fan only and different practical silencer configuration setups. In order to determine the fan-silencer combination that would give the maximum noise attenuation, total noise intensity, noise contributed to by the fan motor only, as well as aerodynamical noise created through air interacting with the fan parts were considered to obtain decibel readings for the octave bands. Subsequently, the optimal configuration found was the setup with flexible silencers on the fan inlet and the fan outlet. If only one silencer is used, it should be installed on the fan inlet. The aerodynamic noise affects the low frequencies. The flow noise is then overtaken at 1 kHz by the mechanical noise.

Jan 1, 1995

By J E. Gordon

For many years, it has been known that certain loud noises may, with prolonged exposure, temporarily or permanently damage a person's hearing ability. Pneumatic rock drills, al-though among the offenders, have, until recently, remained unaltered and unrestricted as to noise output. Now, there are drills available with higher rates of penetration and yet with noise levels reduced to those of previous models or less. Use of such drills, when proved to be superior in noise attenuation and of acceptable performance, should be encouraged in order to reduce future hearing losses to a minimum. People Have the Right to Hear P ERHAPS the earliest recognized indication of hearing loss due to industrial noise was the deaf-ness developed by the workmen in boiler factories. Here, the vibration set up in the shells by the riveting hammers gradually deteriorated the workmen's hearing, especially those whose job it was to hold the dollies inside the drum, where the sound is greatly intensified by reflection

Jan 1, 1963

Reduce the noise levels to which operators of double-drum longwall shearers are exposed without compromising the operational effectiveness of the shearer. The Problem Noise produced by double-drum longwall shearers can be harmful to machine operators. Typical noise levels at the lead-drum operator position range from 100 to 105 dBA, and Federal noise regulations allow only one to two hours of exposure per shift at these levels. Noise radiated by the shearer cutting drum is the primary contributor to the overall noise level. However, test of a noise-controlled cutting drum developed by the Bureau of Mines reduced the operator noise level to 95 dBA, thereby increasing the allowable operating time to four hours per shift. Approach The key design aspect of the noise-controlled shearer drum is its reduced vibration-al response to coal-cutting forces. Laboratory studies have shown that these forces are concentrated in the low-frequency region (500 Hz and below). Since the cylindrical core and the cantilevered I plate-like helix of the standard shearer drum are easily excited by these forces (natural vibration frequencies be-

Jan 1, 1985

By A. L. Edwards

A retrospective study was conducted on the Rand Mutual Assurance (RMA) noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) compensation claims from 1998 to 2008 to determine if the 2008 milestone agreed at the 2003 Mine Health and Safety Summit was achieved. The number and costs of NIHL compensation claims in different commodity sectors and workplaces were collated. A secondary analysis of the ages of employees compensated after 2008 was conducted. A complementary retrospective analysis of audiogram data investigated the percentage loss of hearing (PLH) shift in different homogeneously exposed groups and occupations at two gold mines. The compensation claims analysis indicated a significant decrease in NIHL claims from 1998 to 2008, but the milestone was not achieved. The reason may be either that claims have not been submitted timeously as required by Instruction 171 and that the current submissions are a result of pre-2003 noise exposure, or that employees who were baselined are still developing NIHL owing to ineffective hearing conservation programmes in place in the mining industry. On the basis of best practice for hearing conservation, recommendations are made for leading indicators in hearing conservation programmes and for reducing the risks of NIHL in order to achieve the 2013 milestone.

Jan 1, 2012