Search Documents

By T. N. Moore, E. M. De Souza

J. Dasher Regarding the March 1991 ME technical paper by De Souza and Moore: For more than a decade since my February 1981 article on how to use modern metric, which SME-AIME had decided to do, I have monthly pointed out metric errors to the editors. In part, I do this because there has been no action to allow editors to fix figures and tables or to allow them to require authors to do so. The latest resulting atrocity provokes this discussion of vibrating drill handle units being stated in decibels. Reply by T. Moore We have read the discussion of our paper by Mr. Dasher. Our reaction is one of surprise and incredulity. It would seem that Mr. Dasher takes exception to the use of the decibel scale to present vibration acceleration data, and the use of hertz as the unit for frequency. The basis for his objection to the decibel appears to be that it has no dimensions (which somehow invalidates its use), that it is "non-metric" and, finally, that it is parochial (of limited or narrow scope). His objection to the use of the term hertz is not stated, but we will assume that it stands condemned as "non-metric" and parochial. Obviously we disagree with Mr. Dasher's views and will now outline our reasons. Although the decibel scale originates from transmission line theory and telephone engineering, it is also at present widely used, not only in the fields of electronic engineering and acoustics, but also in the area of vibration. The original definition of the decibel (dB) was based on power ratios: dB = 10 log 10(W/W0) where Wo is a reference power. However, as the power measured across a given impedance is related to the square of the force acting upon this impedance, Z, a more commonly used definition is: [2 dB = 10 logF /Z) = 20 log F/F 10\ F0 2 /Z(0)] where F and F0 are the r.m.s. values of the forces. Now, if the measurements are related to one and the same impedance, the decibel notation in the form of 20log10(X/Xo) may be used as a convenient relative magnitude scale for a variety of quantities. Thus, X may, for instance, be an r.m.s. displacement, velocity or acceleration. It is only required that XD always be a reference quantity of the same type as X. That is, when X represents an acceleration, then X0 represents a reference acceleration. This is the formulation used in our paper. This was not an arbitrary choice on our behalf but reflects standard practice as specified in the International Standard ISO 5349-1986(E) Mechanical Vibration - Guidelines for the Measurement and the Assessment of Human Despite the metric prefix, the decibel is a parochial expression of (l) the logarithmic ratio of the loudness of a sound to what is normally audible or (2) the logarithmic ratio of two power signals in radio or electronics. A decibel is not a unit, much less an SI, unit and has nothing whatsoever to do with the acceleration of drill handles. Stating that m/s2 (acceleration) is decibels is without reason. Whoever reviewed this material should not have allowed publication of figures of dB and H.[ ] Exposure to Hand-Transmitted Vibration. This was clearly stated in the "measurement protocol" section of our paper. This quantity is then referred to as the acceleration level and is expressed in dB. We may have inadvertently caused some confusion when we simply used the term acceleration to refer to acceleration level on our diagrams. At the time, we felt the use of dB or m/s2 would make the context clear to the reader. For any confusion this decision may have engendered, we apologize. Since the decibel expresses the ratio of two like quantities, it certainly has no dimensions. It is, however, common practice to treat "decibel" as a unit as, for example, in the sentence, "The acceleration level measured at the operator's hand was 160 dB." The expression of measured quantities in dimensionless form is not inherently unacceptable. In fact, in many areas of engineering it is standard practice (consider the use of Reynolds Number, Nusselt Number, etc.). The fact that the decibel is a dimensionless quantity makes the question of whether it is a SI unit nonsensical. However, it is valid to insist that the dimensional quantities used to obtain the decibel values be expressed in SI units. A careful reading of our paper will make it clear that the measured acceleration was, in fact, expressed in units of m/s2 as was the reference acceleration (l x 10-6 m/S2). These are the accepted derived SI units for acceleration. See, for example, the standard ASTM E380-89a Standard Practice for Use of the International System of Units (SI) (The Modernized Metric System). Concerning Mr. Dasher's implication that hertz (Hz) is an unacceptable unit of measure for frequency, we would again refer him to the standard ASTM E380-89a. Here, he will find (section 2.4.2) that hertz is an accepted "special name" for the derived SI units-1. This is in keeping with numerous other international standards including ISO 5349-1986(E) to which we referred in our paper. In conclusion, we agree with Mr. Dasher on the desirability of expressing measurements in modern SI units. But we would remind him that the standards that define the use of these units, and the accepted means of presenting measured data, are in a continual state of refinement. It is, therefore, incumbent upon him to keep abreast of these changes if he wishes to constructively critique the work of others.[ ]

Jan 1, 1992

By E. L. Fidler, T. E. Finch

Wayne Anderson Regarding the technical paper by Thomas E. Finch and Edward L. Fidler, "Recovery of Stray (Thin) Seams in Western Coal Mining." I would like to comment on this subject. In western Canada, most strip mines encounter thin seam coal or rider seams. Although the paper addresses the problems and costs associated with the recovery of this coal, it does not take into account what the savings are. Without looking at the savings, the "Total Objective" is of course not clear. I feel that in a stripping operation the mine can spend per ton (of the thin seam) up to their dragline stripping costs per ton to recover a rider seam or thin seam. The reasoning behind this is simply that this is the price the mine will have to pay to expose an equivalent amount of coal without the recovery of these thin seams. If the mine can recover a rider seam or thin seam for less than the dragline operating costs per ton, a savings will be realized. By recovering a thin seam or rider seam, the life of an ore body is extended by that amount of coal not thrown away. In addition, the cost of land acquisition, associated permits, capital, and reclamation will be reduced as more coal is delivered for a given area. When the above points are considered, the recovery of these thin seams can be very profitable and indeed worth recovering.

Jan 11, 1982

By Wayne Anderson

Regarding the technical paper by Thomas E. Finch and Edward L. Fidler, "Recovery of Stray (Thin) Seams in Western Coal Mining." I would like to comment on this subject. In western Canada, most strip mines encounter thin seam coal or rider seams. Although the paper addresses the problems and costs associated with the recovery of this coal, it does not take into account what the savings are. Without looking at the savings, the "Total Objective" is of course not clear. I feel that in a stripping operation the mine can spend per ton (of the thin seam) up to their dragline stripping costs per ton to recover a rider seam or thin seam. The reasoning behind this is simply that this is the price the mine will have to pay to expose an equivalent amount of coal without the recovery of these thin seams. If the mine can recover a rider seam or thin seam for less than the dragline operating costs per ton, a savings will be realized. By recovering a thin seam or rider seam, the life of an ore body is extended by that amount of coal not thrown away. In addition, the cost of land acquisition, associated permits, capital, and reclamation will be reduced as more coal is delivered for a given area. When the above points are considered, the recovery of these thin seams can be very profitable and indeed worth recovering.

Jan 1, 1983

By Maurice Grieves

GC. Waterman Mr. Grieves' paper on "Shaft Sinking Today--A Boring Business Tomorrow" in the Dec. 1981 issue of MINING ENGINEERING is an excellent description of recent improvements in speed and costs of shaft sinking. However, shaft boring techniques are not a recent development. In 1935-36, the Idaho Maryland Co. (gold), Grass Valley, CA, bored the vertical 1.5-m-diam Idaho No. 2 ventilation and supply shaft to a depth of 346 m. The equipment was designed and perfected by Branner Newsome and was, I believe, described in "Transactions." Pickands Mather later bored a 1.8-m-diam shaft to a depth of about 305 m using Newsome's design. The Idaho No. 2 shaft cut through hard gabbro, diabase dikes, soft serpentine, very incompetent ankeritized serpentine and a strong fault zone. The completed shaft did not require timber support; the fault zone was cemented. Equipment consisted of a rotating 1.5-m or 3-m core barrel with a slotted bottom which cut a 76-mm kerf. The cutting agent was chilled steel shot introduced into the slot as needed. The driving mechanism and core barrel were lowered into the shaft, the former secured to the wall and the inshaft "engineer" operated the motors which controlled core barrel rpm and advance. After an advance of 1.5-3 m the equipment was lifted out of the shaft, a half(?) stick of powder cut off the drilled core, and it was hoisted to the surface with a cable attached to an eye bolt at the tope of the core. A "shift" consisted of three men: hoistman, equipment operator (down the shaft), and a surface laborer. Advance was variable as equipment and techniques were perfected. Near the end of the job advance was, as I remember, 1.5-3 m per shift. Costs were, as I recall, about $115/m. Up to 4 m cores were lifted out in one piece and swung to the dump by a stiff leg derrick. The Newsome equipment was relatively inexpensive to build and operate and his method should be (more than?) competetive with the methods described by Grieves. W.E. Hawes The author, in mentioning the South African developments of the cactus grab, ignores the parallel development of the Cryderman mucker in this hemisphere. Perhaps a slightly longer history of blind hold drilling would have been in order. Blind shaft boring got a major boost at the Nevada Test Site, as part of the nuclear weapons development, when it was essential to be able to quickly assess depth for weapons testing. One of the early civilian attempts to utilize this technology occurred when Kerr McGee drilled the shaft at the Section 19 Mine at Ambrosia Lake, NM. This twin masted drill rig belonged to a subsidiary of Kerr McGee, not Shaft Drillers. This was a difficult hole, due to bentonitic shales that decomposed. Later advances in drilling fluids eliminated this problem. The Conoco project referred to is not entirely correct, and needs minor amplification: The depth of the development (not pilot) shaft drilled was 684 m, at a diameter of 3.05 m, with a 2.16 m ID hydratatic casing being installed to a depth of 669 m. Conoco Inc., not Challenger, executed the drilling, however Conoco did use Challenger Drilling Company's Rig 14-S. Rig 14-S is unique in that it is specifically designed for shaft drilling, rather than being an oil field rig used for this service. All work was planned and directed by Conoco personnel. Deviation of the aforementioned shaft from vertical was 31 cm. Two smaller shafts (pilot shafts) were drilled with the same rig. These smaller ones were drilled 1.8 m in diameter, to depth of 665 m and cased with .91-m-diam casing, to depth of 650 m to be used as pilot holes for 5.5 m diameter shafts. The total elapsed time for all drilling, casing, cementing, and rig moves was 50 weeks. The constraints mentioned of vertical accuracy, torque, wall collapse, rig set up time, lining time etc., pumping out, etc., may not be as serious as the author implies. First, vertical accuracy: The record achieved by Conoco indicates that with reasonable care, good accuracy can be obtained, primarily by having a fair amount of weight in tension, rather than on the drill bit. Second, the amount of torque that can be applied to the drill stem has been greatly increased by the introduction of larger diameter drill stems, such as the new Hughes rig uses. Third, risk of collapse of shaft walls is minimal with the proper mud program. Basically, the walls are supported by the weight of the mud and it is not removed until some type of casing is installed and grouted in. Here in the real challenge of blind drilling shafts to devise a more economical method of lining bored shafts than using steel casing. The remaining issues were minor at Conoco, provided adequate planning and scheduling takes place. An excellent paper, "Shaft Drilling--Crownpoint Project" by Hassell H. Hunter, presented at the Fifth Uranium Symposium in Albuquerque in Sept. 1981 contains details of this project. A combination of blind boring, with enlargement by either mechanical means (boring machine, or tunneling type shield) or slabbing down, with muck removal through a larger bored shaft would seem to be the future trend in shaft development. The economics, especially for wet conditions, favor this concept over conventional sinking, as has been demonstrated at Kerr McGee --Churchrock, UNC--Churchrock and Conoco at Crownpoint.

Jan 3, 1983

By Stephen Semeniuk

Discussion by Stephen Semeniuk Discussion As a valuator and SME member, I view Ross D. Lawrence's position as based on unproven and faulty assumptions made with regard to the pragmatic evidence presented in his paper. Moreover, his call for the inclusion of all mineral resources in discounted cash flow valuations is redundant, if not irrelevant, as there are procedures that already take all classes of mineralization into consideration for valuation purposes. In my experience as a valuator, I find that Canadian securities regulators are more than accommodating in allowing any valuations of mineral properties to be based on cash flow calculations. In other business areas, the same regulators usually reject discounted cash flow valuations of projects or businesses with no operating history. Instead, the regulators prefer valuations to be based on other transactions tested in the marketplace. Valuations based on actual market transactions are less subjective than discounted cash flow calculations and/or the capitalization of arbitrary, untested or undemonstrated earnings projections. In the mining and minerals sector, such projections may be made by persons not qualified to make such projections. In support of this statement, I direct readers to the article "Valuation of mineral properties which do not contain exploitable reserves" by Lionel C. Kilburn, which appeared in the August 1990 issue of the CIM Bulletin. To quote from the article: "Value of a mineral property depends basically upon metal prices, recoverable grades, mining and metallurgical practices, commodity supply and demand, and political-economic conditions, all of which vary with time. Five fields of expertise influence the value of a mineral property: •geological engineering, •commodity markets, •financial markets, •stock markets and •mineral property markets. The skills of geologists and engineers properly apply to the first field of expertise. Knowledge and consideration of the other four fields is important, but such advice is more properly sought from marketing experts, economists and stockbrokers." Securities regulators have created no hardship for valuators by excluding unsubstantiated resources in discounted cash flow valuations. In the field of engineering, best design practices apply. A margin of safety is built into the design criteria for any new equipment or structure that will exceed normally expected load levels and stresses, even though such considerations imply higher front end costs. In accounting, the comparable operating principle is conservatism. It explains why, for balancesheet presentation purposes, inventory is stated at cost or market, whichever is the lowest value. Similarly, when the engineering or geoscience-based valuator plays in the field of finance, the rules of accounting and applied economics apply. Regulators in their skepticism of income-based valuations are in tune with similar views already expressed in mining literature. To quote H. Van Tingley, in Mining Magazine, July 1996: "... the DCF method has inherent dangers when applied to undeveloped resources. Firstly, it presents an often-undeserved aura of accuracy. A DCF value is no more accurate than the least accurate of the assumptions incorporated into the calculation - and assumptions

Jan 1, 2003

By A. M. Radigan, W. G. Prast

M.S. Azun The authors' paper did not explain the facts and reasons why state companies are established and what their role is in international industrial mineral trading. Also, I do not agree with the conclusion implying that the main goal for state companies is to capitilize natural resources. Almost all state companies are founded by certain laws and their activities are arranged by state regulations. Their only aim is to operate mineral deposits for their people and to protect the rights of the people. Although some ore deposits, such as nonstrategic or small, may be exploited by privately owned companies, the state has the right to control the operation and production. Activities of state companies may or may not be widened because of the character of the deposits and the importance of the mineral market involved. For some countries, although governments may occasionally change hands, the policy of the mineral trading system is not affected by this change. There is no doubt that any government desires to make more earnings to increase GNP, when it is involved in operating and trading mines. It wants to produce and sell the finished products, instead of unprocessed ones, if possible. When it is known that some mineral deposits are relatively rare, such as Turkish boron deposits, the government can nationalize the mines to control production and affect the market. If there is an abundance of a certain mineral in the market, the government can cut production and set a floor price, such as Canadian potash. Also, when production of a specific mineral is unique, such as Turkish chromite, the price of such mineral may be set by correspondant government. One may add that if some governments with their state companies produce a certain mineral in a larger amount, they may decide to establish a cartel to protect their production and price. These are the facts followed by government-owned state companies and partially government-owned companies. The reason being charge of many deposits by the state companies is always the same: "protect" the mineral rights of the people.

Jan 2, 1984

By M. S. Azun

The authors' paper did not explain the facts and reasons why state companies are established and what their role is in international industrial mineral trading. Also. I do not agree with the conclusion implying that the main goal for state companies is to capitalize natural resources. Almost all state companies are founded by certain laws and their activities are arranged by state regulations. Their only aim is to operate mineral deposits for their people and to protect the rights of the people. Although some ore deposits, such as nonstrategic or small, may be exploited by privately owned companies, the state has the right to control the operation and production. Activities of state companies may or may not be widened because of the character of the deposits and the importance of the mineral market involved. For some countries, although governments may occasionally change hands, the policy of the mineral trading system is not affected by this change. There is no doubt that any government desires to make more earnings to increase GNP, when it is involved in operating and trading mines. It wants to produce and sell the finished products, instead of unprocessed ones, if possible. When it is known that some mineral deposits are relatively rare, such as Turkish boron deposits, the government can nationalize the mines to control production and affect the market. If there is an abundance of a certain mineral in the market, the government can cut production and set a floor price, such as Canadian potash. Also, when production of a specific mineral is unique, such as Turkish chromite, the price of such mineral may be set by correspondent government. One may add that if some governments with their state companies produce a certain mineral in a larger amount, they may decide to establish a cartel to protect their production and price. These are the facts followed by government-owned state companies and partially government-owned companies. The reason being charge of many deposits by the state companies is always the same: "protect" the mineral rights of the people.

Jan 1, 1985

By Stephen Semeniuk

Working with junior mining companies as a valuer, my experience with regulators is that simplicity works and the sales comparison method is the way to go. What I like about Mr. Ellis?s approach (as in his Table 7) is the integration of commodity prices with the timing of acquisitions and the implication of price changes in gold on the adjustment of individual project valuations. However, the sample gold-related appraisals in Ellis?s paper are pre-2008 transactions and readers should be made aware of the current market for such projects. Before moving on, to be noted is that the effective date of the Las Brisas appraisal (Ellis?s sample Appraisal 3) is Feb. 10, 2006; given that the subject value of Transaction 9, Choco 10 in Ellis?s Table 6 was listed as $353 million for a 95% interest in the con-cession, I am uncomfortable accepting that the acquisition was suddenly worth the adjusted value of $1,205 million (as given in Ellis?s Table 7). In some cases, illiquidity discounts can apply, and commodity-wise, in the one-month period between the acquisition in January 2006 and the adjustment to the Las Brisas conditions as of February 10, 2006, the indicated gold price change was only 41 cents/g ($12.60/oz); i.e., from $17.50/g to $17.91/g ($544.40/oz to $557/oz).

Jan 1, 2012

By A. G. Moncrieff

In the paper the authors show [(Fig. 12)] in diagramatic form a "typical vacuum filtration system." This indicates a drum filter with two filtrate receivers-one for mother liquor and one for wash liquor. Have the authors ever found a drum filter that will adequately separate mother liquor from wash liquor? I recall in about 1957 being superintendent of a major copper leaching operation treating oxide flotation concentrates. The plan was being expanded, and filters installed to replace CCD following acid leaching and primary thickening of the pulp. The design of the expansion allowed the mother liquor to join the thickener overflow as feed for the electrolytic tankhouse. The water balance required that only pan of the wash liquor could be electrolysed direct, and the remainder had to be treated by lime precipitation. The design assumed the mother liquor would have the same copper content (about 50 gpl) as in the leach pulp solution, and the wash liquor about 50% of this (25 gpl from memory). You can imagine my horror when, on starting up, the solution from the mother liquor receiver contained somewhat under 40 gpl and, from the wash liquor receiver, somewhat over 40 gpl. The filters were provided by two of the most reputable manufacturers and, in the end I believe they agreed that never before had they supplied rotary drum filters that would segregate the filtrates. By changes to the valve design we made minor improvements, but eventually decided that insufficient segregation of the filtrates was possible to warrant trying to do it. On further consideration I concluded that, owing to the time delay between solution passing through the cake and entering the valve, segregation was impossible, though radical alteration of the internal piping of the filter might have improved it. I would be interested to know if anyone has found a solution to this problem using a drum filter. If not, why go on publishing information that infers that it is possible?

Jan 1, 1982

Jan 1, 1985

By A. D. Hughes

C. W. MERRILL*-Mr. Hughes' paper not only is very well presented but is most timely in that it covers a subject of vital interest to the United States. Tin is one of the strategic metals which has not been found here in appreciable quantities. The total United States tin output since the first recorded production over 100 years ago would not supply current consumption for a fortnight. On the consumption side, tin is extremely important in national defense because of its use in tin plate which, in the form of tin cans, makes it possible to feed properly the armies that the United States recruits from its civilian population in emergencies. Moreover, the internal combustion engines so important in powering tanks, planes, and other war machines, require large quantities of tin alloys for bearings and for soldering. These considerations, along with the fact that Malaya, historically, has been the leading source of tin to the United States, make the kind of information that Mr. Hughes has presented so ably, a matter of vital interest.

Jan 1, 1949

This is a most interesting paper and some data in it are corroborated by work I did at Watertown Arsenal some time ago with iron powder. I would like to ask Dr. Wulff to say just a little more about the compressive and tensile stresses on the surface of compacts. JOHN WULFF (author's reply).-Our work has not yet been completed; although enough data have been obtained with cylindrical compacts of iron to permit some conclusions. Briefly, in a compact 3/4 in. high and 1/2 in. in diameter pressed at 48 tons per sq. in., the residual stresses on the surface measured by X-ray diffraction techniques are as follows: The radial stresses on top center and bottom of compacts are practically zero; the longitudinal residual stresses on the side walls are near the top quarter of the compact about seven tenths that of the yield point of mild steel in tension; at the center surface of the compact they are in compression and in magnitude about 0.3 that of mild steel in tension; near the bottom, they are practically zero. F. V. LENEL.?- I was particularly interested in the work that Messrs. Wulff and Seelig reported on the influence of lubrication on the density of parts. In connection with the work of the American Society for Testing Materials on determining the green density of a compact, we ran into considerable difficulty in getting reproducible results of green density determinations. It was much easier to get a reproducible green density when the lubricant was mixed with the powder than when the lubricant was applied to the die walls; particularly when the die was not perfect-i.e., if it was somewhat rough or out of round. In this case, it was almost impossible to get reproducible green densities when the die walls were lubricated, while it was not too difficult to get reproducible

Jan 1, 1946

MR. DICKINSON: There is an increase of dust in machine loading, especially with the McKinlay loading and cutting machine which was extremely dusty. MR. FORRESTER: Declared more dust must be expected because when loading by machinery, the coal is shot harder in order to make it easier for the machine to pick it up. He believes however, that there was less hazard because of the closer supervision possible by reason of the concentration of operation. MR. McAULIFFE: Machine loading more dusty than hand loading. D. HARRINGTON: The hazard is greatly increased by modern methods of loading. Not only do the methods increase the quantity of dust, but they also increase the rapidity of mining and the increased quantity of coal broken down causes large quantities of gas to be released. The number of motors on loading machines and conveyors add to the hazard. No more dangerous places can be found for such motors than at the working face where there is excessive quantities of pure coal dust and where there is more gas than along any other point. Regarding Mr. Herres remarks that the machine loading was safer on account of the concentration and possibility of close supervision, Mr. Harrington said he believed concentration likely to prove a source of danger rather than its preventive. At Dolomite, Alabama, a number of men had assembled, and as a result what was a relatively small explosion killed a large number of men. Concentration is not without its dangers to mine operations. MR. McAULIFFE: These arguments do not appeal to me. Few places are better sprinkled than the working places in a machine loading mine. There is. more effective supervision, and there can be more ventilation. I believe machine loading will increase safety by that very concentration that Mr. Harrington deplores.

Jan 1, 1925

BENEDICT SHUBART: I am rather surprised at one statement of Mr. McKeehan, that he found it satisfactory to bond only one track. It has always been my idea of good practice to bond both tracks and cross bond frequently, so that in case of any break in the bonding of one track, which frequently occurs, there will be no interruption in the circuit.

Jan 1, 1923

By David A. Zegeer

Since 1980, more than 40 miners have lost their lives by being trapped and suffocating in stock-piles, bins, silos, and similar facilities. Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is concerned about these accidents, most of which could be prevented if management and miners appreciated the hazard. In February 1986, the coal industry had a suffocation accident that drew national attention. A group of engineers were standing on a coal stockpile. It gave way under their feet. Five of the engineers were buried in the coal and suffocated. As with all fatal accidents, MSHA investigated the cause of this tragedy. I also asked my staff to look into the history of similar accidents. I found out it is rare to have multiple fatalities due to suffocation in material. But, over the years, there has been a long series of individual fatalities from this type of accident. Here are some examples. In Oct. 1985, a coal mine employee in Virginia entered a hopper to collect a coal sample. The feeders were started while he was standing in the hopper. He sank into the coal and suffocated. In Sept. 1985, an employee at a Texas sand company climbed onto a surge pile, to check a problem with sand flow. When other employees found him, the sand had swallowed him. Only his face and one hand were showing. Though the victim's face was clear of the sand, he suffocated before rescuers could free him. Many people do not realize you can suffocate in this kind of situation, though your head is free. Every time you exhale, the material has room to shift and press harder against your chest. Then you have less room to inhale. If this goes on long enough, it gets to the point where you cannot inhale at all. That is what happened to the victim in this accident. In May 1985, a plant operator at a Wisconsin sand and gravel operation purposely slid into the drawhole of a surge pile. He tried to break up large rocks that were clogging the drawpoint. Material piled on the side of the surge pile slid down and buried him. The operator was wearing a safety belt and line. But he was covered by 3 to 3.7 m (10 to 12 ft) of material and could not be pulled free. This incident illustrates another point. A safety line can help. But it is not enough. Workers should never put themselves in a position where loose material can fall on them from above. In Jan. 1985, a young Utah coal miner was waiting for a ride home from a co-worker whose job was at the tipple. A jam developed in the coal bin. The men could not clear the jam from the outside. So the young miner jumped into the bin. He started digging with a shovel at the toe of the coal pile. It caved in on him and he suffocated. The young miner had only three months of mining experience. He had not been trained for work around the coal bin. Since 1980, 16 coal miners and 26 nonmetal miners have lost their lives in loose-material suffocation accidents. Suffocation accidents occur in many areas around mines - bins, hoppers, stockpiles, surge piles, and silos, among others. One recent accident occurred at a surface coal mine in Illinois. The victim was walking over an area that had been drilled and blasted the week before. He fell into a void that had been crusted over with earth. He too suffocated. And many materials have been involved in suffocation accidentscoal, crushed stone, sand, salt, different kinds of ore, ammonium nitrate pellets used in blasting, and a powdery byproduct of iron ore milling called calcine. In addition to fatal accidents, there are near misses. We do not know how many. Most of them are not reported. A person who gets trapped in material, but is rescued, is usually unhurt. MSHA sometimes hears about these accidents by chance, or because they are reported in the local media. We do know that near misses are happening far more often

Jan 1, 1987

By Brandon Buschmeier, Frederic Masse

"Inclusions are a type of ground improvement that provide an improvement of a soil mass by insertion of a material with better characteristics than the surrounding soils. There are primarily two types of inclusions: “Soft” inclusions which are constructed of granular material (Stone Columns, Rammed Aggregate Piers, VibroPiers...), and “rigid” inclusions which are constructed of grout inserted with or without pressure (VibroConcrete Columns, Controlled Modulus Columns, Soil Mixing Columns).While the central principle of the inclusions is similar (i.e., overall improvement of characteristics of the soil mass below the structure), the load transfer mechanism is radically different for each technique. Therefore, the applicable design methodology is specific to the type of inclusions and there exists no universal method of design which spans across all inclusions.This paper will present an in-depth comparison between the standard design methods used for “soft” granular-type inclusions (Priebe modified, Balaam & Booker, Goughnour & Bayuk...) and the methods used for “rigid” inclusions which mainly rely on finite element analysis. The paper will explain why the design for soft inclusion methods cannot be applied to rigid inclusions and vice-versa. Each design method will be reviewed in detail to better emphasize its limitations and advantages.Two case histories will also be presented; one for each type of inclusions in order to illustrate the concepts developed in the first part of the paper.1 INTRODUCTION1.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF GROUND IMPROVEMENT WITH INCLUSIONSThe use of ground improvement methods to provide the appropriate amount of foundation support is a growing and constantly evolving industry. Traditional structural foundation methods including ‘shallow’ and ‘deep’ foundations do not adequately address the wide range of settlement tolerances, soil conditions, and loading considerations inherent to each unique potential project. In some instances, ‘shallow’ foundation solutions are simply not feasible due to soil and loading constraints. Furthermore, ‘deep’ foundation solutions are used to ‘bridge’ the soft compressible soils, ensuring that the entirety of the load in the structure is transmitted through individual elements into competent layers below the ground surface (bedrock, dense residual soils). Highly concentrated structural loads are transferred into the individual elements by means of direct contact requiring the use of structurally rigid surficial components (structural slabs, grade beams, and pile caps).Ground improvement bridges the gap between these two traditional methods, offering adequate foundation support while using more costeffective techniques and design methodologies. Inclusions are a type of ground improvement used to provide a reinforcement of the soil mass through the vertical insertion of a material with better characteristics than the surrounding soils. Much like deep foundations, inclusions are installed through soil layers with high compressibility and/or low bearing capacity and terminated in a suitable bearing stratum. However, unlike deep foundations, ground improvement inclusions rely on a distribution of load between the soil and the inclusions. By doing so, some of the structural load is applied directly to the soil in a proportion equal to its bearing capacity and compressibility limits, while the rest of the load is shed into the vertical inclusions down to the bearing stratum. Load sharing is a critical aspect in the performance and design of the various ground improvement methods."

Jan 1, 2015

Remarks Of Mr. Robert W. Hunt, General Superintendent, Albany And Rensselaer Iron And Steel Company., Troy N. Y. - In discussing Dr. Dudley's two most interesting papers, I feel a natural hesitancy in disagreeing with conclusions formed after such careful and conscientious work. But I think he has made his deductions from too meagre premises. The analyses of but twenty-five samples are entirely too few to justify the establishment of so important a formula. When we consider that he indirectly proposes to regulate an interest amounting, even at the present low prices, to over $20,000,000 per annum, we may well hesitate before accepting a formula based upon the chemical and physical analyses of but twenty-five steel rails. Dr. Dudley touches the keynote in referring to the proposed labors of the Government Test Commission. They based their hopes of attaining success upon the chemical and physical analyses of a very large number of samples, and in the only branch of investigation which the short-sighted policy of Congress has allowed them to complete, i.e., chain cables, we find that a dozen, twenty-five or one hundred tests gave no satisfactory results. It was only after many hundreds that they were enabled to draw conclusions. There are so many circumstances bearing upon the life of a rail, that the task of extracting a correct result seems herculean. I presume I am right in stating that in our Northern latitudes early winter and spring months witness the breaking of the greatest number of rails, thus seeming to prove that an unstable road-bed has much to answer for. Then, again, broken and flattened wheels must be taken into account, but I am convinced that more rails have been broken by the treatment which they received before leaving the rolling-mill * The remarks of the participants in this debate have been written out by the speakers, and are here given without any attempt to retain the order of the dis¬cussion. While the report does not, therefore, preserve the vigor and spontaneity of the debate, it is believed that it gains in value by giving the matured views of the speakers. The continuation of this discussion at the Pittsburgh Meeting, May, 1879 (beginning with remarks of Mr. Cloud on page 401), is appended for convenience of reference.-T. M. D., Sec'y

Jan 1, 1879

Edward Keller, Baltimore, Md. (communication to the Secretary): When, at the New Pork meeting, February, 1899, Mr. Douglas gave an abstract of his highly interesting paper on the Copper Queen mine, he invited the members of the Institute, in his usual progressive spirit, to make a full scientific investigation of the region of that mine during the prospective excursion to Bisbee, Arizona. I volunteered to examine some of the metallurgical processes and products of the works, and obtained from Mr. Douglas a valuable series of samples. Upon the issue of his paper, however, I found that he had already a considerable volume of analyses of those products, and that little was left for me to do in that respect, except to duplicate his results, the importance of which work would not have been commensurate to the time and labor involved. I selected, therefore, only some points which he had not made entirely clear, or concerning which I was skeptical. The details of most of my work will appear in a future paper. From Mr. Douglas's figures I have calculated the values for the elimination of impurities in the so-called Leghorn converter, introduced by him at the Copper Queen works, and have found them to be as follows: Percentage of Elimination of Impurities in Pour Blows of a Converter. No of ' Selenium Sulph'r Iron. Zinc. I Nickel. Lead. Antimony Arsenic. and Blow- ! Tellurium .. 1.......... 99.4 99.6 88.0 92.6 94.4 81.6 83.8 40.3 2.......... 99.0 99.6 98.1 92.5 96.8 71.9 76.6 38.1 3.......... 98.8 99.5 93.5 91.4 96.3 63.8 80.6 25.3 4.......... 99.8 99.5 95.8 95.8 97.5 65.3 76.9 36.3 Average 99.2 99.6 93.8 93.1 . 96.2 70.6 ! 79.5 35.0

Jan 1, 1900

By Hickling G.

Discussion at the Manchester Geological and Mining Society's general meeting held in Manchester, February 8th 1916, with Mr. Leonard R. Fletcher, President, in the chair, of papers previously published in Trans. Inst. Min. Engrs.,1915, vol. L, p.322 and p.328. Included are a written contribution by Ollerenshaw W. and oral discussion by the author, Gerrard J., Paton J.D., Smith S.A., Stephenson H., Dixon H.O., Pickup W., Fletcher L.R. and Atherton H.S.

Dec 1, 1916

A great many questions were asked Mr. Bright, and Mr. Bright's opinion was given on a number of subjects. He spoke at length on spring suspension of locomotives, bringing out the necessity for better spring suspension due to heavier weights and higher speeds now developed. The subject of dynamic braking was brought up, and the opinion of the engineers present was that dynamic braking was not a desirable feature except where heavy, long, adverse grade is encountered. Mr. Goddard and Mr. Bright had a spirited discussion regarding ball bearings, bringing out the opinion of the meeting that ball bearings in motors are preferable to sleeve bearings, and the few failures so far encountered are due to improper application or insufficient size of bearing. Mr. Shubart brought up the question of locomotive speed, mentioning some high speed work on main haulage, also an interesting experiment in a large Eastern mine where very slow speed, 3 1/2 miles per hour, gathering locomotives were substituted for the high speed gathering locomotives with an increase in cars gathered and a material decrease in derailment and accident. Mr. Bright mentioned the improvement in gathering reels, and Mr. Shubart mentioned the safety in the use of the concentric cable in direct current, using the outer wire as the ground wire, so that in case of accident to the cable, the ground wire acted as a protector to the live wire, materially decreasing the danger of sparking. Mr. H. I. Smith of the Bureau of Mines brought up the question of explosion proof construction, and Mr.. Bright and. Mr. Shubart explained the construction adopted by two of the larger manufacturers. Experiment has shown that the force of explosion in motors due to gas does not exceed 150 pounds per square inch. All forms of screen or baffles have proven an actual source of danger, due to the collection of dust, usually soaked in oil, forming an active means of propagating flame, together with the fact that all these appendages are frequently left off when the motors are repaired. Modern construction eliminates all openings, screens, devices for stopping or extinguishing flame. The motor is made entirely enclosed, practically air tight, all joints are ground and all openings necessary for access and attention are closed by bolted plates. The case is made stout enough to withstand any interior explosions, and ample ribbing is provided for heat dissipation. Mr. Bright was asked regarding the use of contactor control. He replied that his company is now recommending contactor controls for series and parallel starting on all locomotives of 13 tons and over, and particularly on the tandem units that are now becoming popular in coal mining work. The question of dynamic braking and reversing was brought up and Mr. Bright explained that this made a very complicated contactor installation but they had

Jan 1, 1922