International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 24 (2014) 39–44

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mining Science and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmst

Dust dispersion and management in underground mining faces

Kurnia Jundika Candra a,b, Sasmito Agus Pulung a,c,⇑, Mujumdar Arun Sadashiv a,c,d
a
Minerals Metals and Materials Technology Centre, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge 117576, Singapore
b
Mechanical Engineering, Masdar Institute of Science and Technology, Masdar City, Abu Dhabi 54224, United Arab Emirates
c
Department of Mining and Materials Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, Québec H3A 2B2, Canada
d
Department of Bioresource Engineering, McGill University, Québec H9X 3V9, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Presence of fine dust in air causes serious health hazard for mine operators resulting in such serious prob-
Received 9 May 2013 lems as coal workers’ pneumoconiosis and silicosis. Major sources of dust appear of course along the min-
Received in revised form 5 June 2013 ing face where the minerals are extracted. Proper control and management are required to ensure safe
Accepted 27 July 2013
working environment in the mine. Here, we utilize the computational fluid dynamic (CFD) approach to
Available online 2 January 2014
evaluate various methods used for mitigating dust dispersion from the mining face and for ensuring safe
level of dust concentration in the mine tunnel for safety of the operators. The methods used include:
Keywords:
application of blowing and exhaust fans, application of brattice and combination of both. The results sug-
Dust dispersion
Modeling
gest that among the examined methods, implementation of appropriately located brattice to direct the
Underground mine flow from the main shaft to the mining face is the most effective method to direct dust particles away
Ventilation from the mining face.
Ó 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.

1. Introduction
Coal is one of the most important energy resources aside from
gas and oil. It is a major fuel used in producing electricity around
the world due to its relatively low cost. Coal is extracted either
by underground and/or surface mining methods. Today, majority
of coal available in the market (over 60%) is produced from under-
ground mining [1]. Underground coal mining is commonly consid-
ered as one of the most dangerous working environment due to the
presence of various hazards from structural failure to physiological
hazards [2].
Together with methane, dust is one of the major hazard in
underground mining operations. It poses serious health problems
for mine operator and seriously endangers safe production [3,4].
Fine dust particles are easily inhaled through the nose, and they
pass through the respiratory tract (breathing passage) and get
deposited in the lungs in the chest cavity. Overexposure to dust
for a long periods of time may cause coal workers’ pneumoconiosis
(CWP/black lung disease) and silicosis which are uncured once
contracted. Hence, it is critical to maintain dust concentration in
the underground mine below the maximum allowable level.
Various methods and strategies to control dust dispersion in
underground mine have been proposed and evaluated. Among
them, water spray is the most simplest and widely adapted
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Mining and Materials Engineering,
McGill University, Montreal, Québec H3A 2B2, Canada.
E-mail address: ap.sasmito@gmail.com (A.P. Sasmito).
method to reduce dust concentration in air. It can reduce dust con-
centration in air by up to 50%–60% and up to 99% when wet dust
extractors are installed. Application of water spray however have
several drawbacks: (1) it has limited residual effect due to evapo-
ration, and will need to be reapplied at various points throughout
the process to remain effective; (2) excessive use of water spray re-
sults in low quality product and difficulties in material handling
and transportation due to high moisture content; (3) it requires
large amount of water which need to be transported from the sur-
face, adding complexity to the mining operation; and (4) once dust
is airborne, other methods of control must be applied to dilute it,
direct it away from workers, or remove it from the work environ-
ment [5,6]. Hence, a proper and effective ventilation system is
mandatory to dilute and sweep away dust from the mining area
and to ensure sufficient air for the mine worker.
To facilitate the proper designing a mine ventilation system for
a particular mine, it is necessary to develop in-depth knowledge of
the flow directions and dust dispersion. Several studies have been
conducted to investigate the flow behavior and dust movement in
an underground mine. Torrano et al. numerically investigated dust
behavior in a mining roadways with road headers, and found that
the most effective modifications to control dust dispersion are by
increasing ventilation air flow velocity, reducing setback distance
and modifying ventilation duct height, additionally, highlighted
the importance of monitoring dust concentration and airflow
velocity in the underground mine [7]. Niu et al. numerically inves-
tigated flow behavior and dust dispersion in underground mining
face, and revealed that dust concentration in area close to the

2095-2686/$ - see front matter Ó 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2013.12.007
40 J.C. Kurnia et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 24 (2014) 39–44

mining face (within 7 m) is alarming [3]. In addition, similar to the Table 1

findings by Torano et al., they found that increasing ventilation air Base case and geometrical parameters.

velocity could reduce dust concentration [7]. They also listed sev- Property Value
eral factors that influence dust distribution such as pipe diameter, Injection type Surface (mining surface)
setback distance and height of the ventilation duct. Wang et al. Density (kg/m3) 1400 (coal high value)
numerically evaluated the application of air curtain installed on Diameter distribution Rosin–Rammler
the longwall shearer to isolate dust from the mine worker operat- Diameter range (m) 2  106–1  104
Mean diameter (m) 1  104
ing the shearer [8]. Their study indicated the effectiveness of the Spread parameter 2.78
air curtain in protecting operator from dust exposure. Performance Velocity (m/s) 1
of the installed air curtain is strongly influenced by the velocity of Total flow rate (kg/s) 0.0062
ventilation air flow on the mining face. For different mining face Duct dimension (m) 0.6
Tunnel high (m) 2.9
heights, different air curtain designs are required. These studies fo-
Tunnel length (m) 20
cus only on one or two methods. Similar works in ventilation with Tunnel width (m) 6
different application areas have also been conducted by many Fan diameter (m) 0.6
researchers. Widiatmoko et al. numerically evaluated gas diffusion Fan position (exhaust) (m) 11.4, 1, 0.65
of turbulence flow in underground mine ventilation system [9]. Fan position (blowing) (m) 8.25, 1, 2

Pan et al. investigated spontaneous coal combustion in mine goaf

by measuring O2, CO and compared with numerical simulation of
species concentration throughout the goaf [10]. El-Nagdy evalu-
ated the stability of multiple fans in mine ventilation network
using fan and system characteristic curves [11]. Guo and Chen
studied the possibility that utilizes return ventilation air to assist
cooling in underground mine [12]. Wang et al. developed destruc-
tion mechanism of gas explosion to ventilation facilities and auto-
matic recovery technology [13]. No comprehensive evaluation on
various dust mitigation methods has been reported, which is the
theme of this work.
This study investigated the flow behavior and dust dispersion
characteristics in an underground coal mine in order to find ways
to improve the ventilation system design and thus reduce energy
usage and operational cost whilst still satisfying safety regulations.
Here, we utilize the computational fluid dynamic (CFD) approach
to study the flow behavior and dust dispersion in a typical active
mining area on room and pillar mine. Dust is generated at the min-
ing face during the mechanical mining process. The objective of
this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of various ventilation
methods (blowing face ventilation, exhausting face ventilation,
brattice and combination of these) in managing dust dispersion
in underground mine and reducing dust concentration to a safe
level for the operator.
2. Mathematical formulation
A three-dimensional model is developed for a typical mine
development region where the active mining takes place, as shown
in Fig. 1. Details on the geometrical parameters are: Wtunnel = 4.0 m;
Ltunnel = 12 m; Htunnel = 2.9 m; blowing fan diameter 0.3 m; exhaust
fan diameter 0.6 m; brattice space in main shaft (Wb1) = 2 m; and
brattice space in mine tunnel (Wb2) = 0.5 m. Ventilation air is
supplied from the inlet and directed to the mining face by
brattice. Dust is generated at the mining face during the mechanical
mining process. Dust used in this study is coal-high value dust with
detail properties, summarized in Table 1. Properties used for dust
dispersion is taken from previous work by Niu et al. [3].
2.1. Governing conservation equations
The mathematical model comprises conservation equations of
mass and momentum subject to appropriate boundary conditions.
Dust is generated at the mining face during material extraction by
continuous miner and is dispersed by ventilation airflow. Conser-
vation equations for mass and momentum are.
r  qU ¼ 0 ð1Þ
qU  rU ¼ r  r þ qg ð2Þ
where q is the fluid density; U the fluid velocity; q the pressure; r
the viscous stress tensor; and g the gravity acceleration.
2.2. Constitutive relations
The viscous stress tensor for fluid can be expressed as:
2
s ¼ ðl þ ltÞðrU þ ðrUÞT Þ  r  ½ðl þ ltÞðr  UÞI  qkI ð3Þ
3
where q is the pressure; l the dynamic viscosity of the fluid; and I
the identity or second order unit tensor.
2.3. Constitutive relations
The most commonly used turbulence model in engineering, viz.,
k-e is selected in this work. This model comprises two equations
which solve for turbulent kinetic energy k, and its rate of

L=20 m
H=2.9 m
In let W=6 m Inl
et
Inlet=2 m/s

an
ingf e
low
W ttic
B tfan et Bra fan tlet
aus Outl s ust Ou
ous Ex
h H
nuo
u
Ex
ha
n t inu o nti r
o
M C iner M C ine
fac iningm L fac iningm
e e

Fig. 1. Schematic view of an underground mine development region.

 J.C. Kurnia et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 24 (2014) 39–44 41

dissipation e, which is coupled to the turbulent viscosity [14]. The wall and increasingly coarser mesh in the middle of the tunnel to
model equations are: reduce the computational cost to manageable level.
   The conservation equations together with the constitutive rela-
qlt
r  ðqUkÞ ¼ r  lþ rk þ qlt G  qe ð4Þ tions, turbulence model and boundary conditions were solved using
rk a finite volume solver, Fluent 6.3.26. The equations were solved
   with the semi-implicit pressure-linked equation (SIMPLE) algo-
qlt C ql Ge e2
r  ðqUeÞ ¼ r  lþ r e þ 1e t  C 2e q ð5Þ rithm, first order upwind discretization and algebraic multi-grid
rk k k method (AMG). Discrete particle model (DPM) was implemented
2  2  2 !  2 to track dust emission and movement. On average, each simulation
@u @v @w @u @ v required around 4000–6000 iterations to meet convergence criteria
G¼2 þ þ þ þ
@x @y @z @y @x of 106 for all variables. Each run required around 8–10 h on work-
 2  2 stations with six core processors, requiring 8–10 GB RAM.
@u @w @w @ v
þ þ þ þ ð6Þ
@z @x @y @z
4. Results and discussion
where lt is turbulent viscosity given by:
2 4.1. Validation
k
lt ¼ q C l ð7Þ
e Here, computational results using four commonly used turbu-
C1e, C2e and Cl are constants whose values are 1.44, 1.92 and 0.09, lence models, e.g., Spallart-Almaras, standard k-Epsilon, standard
respectively. k-Omega and Reynolds Stress Model (RSM) are compared with
flow measurements from Parra et al. [16]. For the sake of brevity,
2.4. Dust movement the experimental set-up used in this paper refers to Parra et al.
[16].
In this study, dust movement is taken into account by utilizing Table 2 shows the numerical results of error of velocity value as
discrete phase model (DPM). This model tracks dust movement in compared to experimental data for various models. It is seen that
the mining area by solving a differential equation for a discrete sec- the choice of turbulence model is important as the predicted
ond phase in the Lagrangian reference time [3]. This second phases behavior can be different. It is noted that the k-Epsilon model gives
comprise spherical particles dispersed in continuous phase. This reasonably good agreement as compared to experimental data
model allows for the coupling between the phases and its impact with average relative error of approximately 30%. As we are inter-
on both the discrete phase trajectories and the continuous phase ested in the overall flow behavior for design purposes, the k-Epsi-
flow. It is assumed that the dust is coming out from the mining face lon model, which has been widely used in engineering application,
at constant rate from the excavator. For first approximation, the is found to be sufficient whilst maintaining low and fast computa-
particle collision is assumed to collide without creating bigger par- tion. In addition, it is noted that the data available has an uncer-
ticle. For comparison purpose later, we define the average dust tainty level of about 10% and the available experimental data are
concentration along the tunnel faces as. limited for thorough validation. We therefore proceed further with
Z this turbulence model. Given the validity of the turbulence model,
1
cdust;ave ¼ cdust dAface ð8Þ it is expected that adding discrete phase model which is based on
Aface Aface Lagrangian approach to the governing equations does not affect the
where cdust is the dust concentration; and Aface the mining face. The validity of the models since the mathematical formulation has
distance from mining face is measured from the face/wall where the been well established in the literature. While experimental evi-
mining/excavation takes place. dence and validation for corresponding dust distributions would
be ideal, lack of such evidence does not limit this study as the phe-
2.5. Boundary conditions nomena observed experimentally for dust distribution are well
captured in the present model. Future work will focus on the thor-
The boundary conditions for the model are summarized as ough validation of dust concentration distribution.
follows: (1) at walls: the standard wall function is used in all sim-
Table 2
ulations, and the particle is assumed to be reflected via an elastic Validation of numerical results for various turbulence models with experimental data.
collision for first approximation; (2) at the inlet: air velocity of
Measurement Distance Spalart– Standard Standard Reynolds
2 m/s is prescribed at the inlet; (3) at the mining face: dust is gen-
point (see from Allmaras k-Epsilon k-Omega stress
erated at total flow rate of 0.0062 kg/s; and (4) at the outlet: Para et al. mining (error,%) (error,%) (error,%) model
stream-wise gradient of the temperature is set to zero and the 2006) face (m) (RSM)
pressure is set to standard atmospheric pressure [3,15]. (error,%)
1 4 43 33 63 37
3. Numerical methodology 1 12 51 48 90 13
1 18 51 51 81 13
2 4 36 44 56 5
The computational domains were created, meshed and labeled 2 12 28 31 60 32
in Gambit 2.3.16. Three different amounts of mesh 1  105, 2 18 57 28 66 32
2  106 and 4  106 were implemented and compared in terms 3 4 52 44 93 21
3 12 15 41 14 28
of local pressure, velocity and methane concentration to ensure a
3 18 60 15 27 28
mesh independent solution. We found that the mesh amount of 4 4 41 51 66 70
around 2  106 gives about 1% deviation compared to the mesh 4 12 56 68 35 72
size of 4  106; whereas, the results from the mesh size of 4 18 48 56 35 72
1  105 deviate up to 8% as compared to those from the finest 5 4 72 15 37 6
5 12 30 48 47 78
one. Therefore, a mesh of around 2 million elements was sufficient 5 18 68 30 43 78
for the numerical investigation purposes: a fine structure near the
42 J.C. Kurnia et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 24 (2014) 39–44

W=4 m
L=12 m
H=2.9 m
Inlet=2 m/s

L
W
(a) Base case (b) Blowing fan (c) Brattice

(d) Exhaust fan (e) Blowing and exhaust fan (f) Brattice and exhaust fan

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Velocity (m/s)

Fig. 2. Air velocity profiles in mining for six considered ventilation system.

W=4 m
L=12 m
H=2.9 m
Inlet=2 m/s

L
W
(a) Base case (b) Blowing fan (c) Brattice

(d) Exhaust fan (e) Blowing and exhaust fan (f) Brattice and exhaust fan

0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016

Dust concentration (kg/m3)

Fig. 3. Dust concentration in mining tunnel for six different ventilation systems.

4.2. Dust management
One of the key factors that affect the performance of a ventila-
tion system is the velocity fields inside the mines. Fig. 2 presents
the predicted velocity profiles for six different scenarios.
Airflow behavior is of course expected to have direct influence
on dust dispersion and mitigation; this is indeed the case, as can
be shown in Figs. 3 and 4. Without additional ventilation, dust is
accumulated in the mining area and could endanger miner’s
health. Blowing fan pushes the dust to the front section but it could
not mitigate the dust away from the mining area. Among studied
methods, brattice ventilation system offers better dust control: it
moves the dust away from the mining face as desired. In addition,
no additional power is required as that for blowing and exhaust fan
ventilation system.
Looking further into dust concentration along the mining tunnel,
it is noted that all additional ventilation systems push the dust par-
ticle to the area near mining face, mirrored by high concentration on
first few meters from the mining face. Overall, additional ventilation
could reduce dust concentration along the tunnel as presented in
 J.C. Kurnia et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 24 (2014) 39–44 43

Brattice
Blowing fan

Z
Y
X
(a) (b) (c)

Brattice
Blowing fan

Exhaust fan Exhaust fan Exhaust fan

(d) (e) (f)

-5
×10
0.20 1.18 2.16 3.14 4.12 5.10 6.08 7.06 8.04 9.02 10.00
Dust diameter (m)

Fig. 4. Dust dispersion in mining tunnel for six different ventilation systems.

0.450 0.018
0.400 Base-case
Dust concentration (kg/m3)

0.016
Dust concentration (kg/m3)

0.350 Blowing
Brattice 0.014
0.300 Exhaust 0.012
0.250 Blowing- exhaust 0.010
Brattice-exhaust
0.200 0.008
0.150 0.006
0.100 0.004
0.050 0.002

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Distance from mining face (m) Distance from mining face (m)
(a) Maximum (b) Average dust concentration along the tunnel

Fig. 5. Additional ventilation reduction of dust concentration along the tunnel.

Fig. 5. Here, we could see that brattice performs best in handling

dust emission by mitigating it away from the mining face. Table 3
Proceeding towards the parasitic loads for each design, i.e., Pressure drop and parasitic loads for various ventilation designs.
pressure drop and auxiliary fan power, in Table 3, we note that
Design Pressure drop (Pa) Additional parasitic
the base-case requires the lowest pressure drop and no additional load (kW)
power needed for fan; however, the performance in terms of dust
Base case 0.56
accumulation is the worst. Blowing ventilation and exhausting Blowing 1.70 1.1
ventilation design require higher pressure drop (approximately 3 Brattice 3.98
times higher than base case) as well as additional power for auxil- Exhausting 1.68 1.1
iary fan; while the brattice ventilation posses the highest pressure Blowing and exhausting 1.50 2.2
Brattice and exhausting 0.73 1.1
drop (around eight times than that of base-case). This can be ade-
quately explained by the fact that the brattice blocks the air and
creates resistance to the flow. The combination of blowing in mines due to its better dust handling and no additional power
exhausting ventilation requires the highest additional parasitic required. Installation of brattice, however, may limit the move-
loads due to high power consumption to drive two fans. The pres- ment of mine operators and vehicles in the tunnel.
sure drop required by brattice exhausting ventilation is found to be
reasonably low (around 20% higher than base case design) with
additional parasitic load; the low pressure drop can be attributed 5. Conclusions
to the additional exhaust fan as it creates negative pressure at
the dead zone area. Hence, it can be deduced that brattice-ventila- In this study, flow behavior and dust dispersion in an under-
tion has potential to be used for a cost-effective ventilation design ground tunnel with and without auxiliary ventilation systems are
44 J.C. Kurnia et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 24 (2014) 39–44
evaluated. Six possible scenarios were examined: blowing fan, ex-
haust fan, brattice, combination of blowing and exhaust fan and
combination of brattice and exhaust fan. The results suggest that
application of brattice offers better dust control. It also requires
no additional power source which makes it suitable for application
in underground mine. It should be noted, however, that installation
of brattice may limit the movement of mine operators and vehicles
in the tunnel. Future study will seek to investigate application of
hybrid brattice (physical and air curtain) which is expected to offer
better dust mitigation.
Acknowledgments
This work was financially supported by the Singapore Economic
Development Board (EDB) through Minerals Metals and Materials
Technology Centre (M3TC) (No. R261501013414).
References
[1] Kurnia JC, Sasmito AP, Mujumdar AS. Computational study of thermal
management in underground coal mines: effect of operating ventilation
parameters. Singapore: National University of Singapore; 2012.
[2] Donoghue AM. Occupational health hazards in mining: an overview. Occup
Med 2004;54:283–9.
[3] Niu W, Jiang ZG, Tian DM. Numerical simulation of the factors influencing dust
in drilling tunnels: its application. Min Sci Technol 2011;21(1):11–5.
[4] Petavratzi E, Kingman S, Lowndes I. Particulates from mining operations: a
review of sources, effects and regulations. Min Eng 2005;18:1183–99.
[5] Colinet JF, Rider JP, Listak JM, Organiscak JA, Wolfe AL. Best practice for dust
control in coal mining. Pittsburgh: National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, Office of Mine Safety and Health Research; 2010.
[6] Gunson AJ, Klein B, Veiga M, Dunbar S. Reducing mine water requirements. J
Clean Prod 2012;21:71–82.
[7] Torano J, Torno S, Menendez M, Gent M. Auxiliary ventilation in mining
roadways driven with roadheaders: validated CFD modeling of dust behavior.
Tunnel Underground Space Technol 2011;26:201–10.
[8] Wang PF, Feng T, Ronghua L. Numerical simulation of dust distribution at a
fully mechanized face under the isolation effect of air curtain. Min Sci Technol
2011;21(1):65–9.
[9] Widiatmoko A, Sasaki K, Widodo NP, Sugai Y, Sinaga J, Yusuf H. Numerical
simulation to evaluate gas diffusion of turbulence flow in mine ventilation
system. Int J Min Sci Technol 2013;23(3):349–55.
[10] Pan RK, Chen YP, Yu MG, Lu C, Yang K. New technological partitions for ‘‘three-
zones’’ spontaneous coal combustion in goaf. Int J Min Sci Technol
2013;23(4):489–93.
[11] El-Nagdy KA. Stability of multiple fans in mine ventilation networks. Int J Min
Sci Technol 2013;23(4):569–71.
[12] Guo PY, Chen C. Field experimental study on the cooling effect of mine cooling
system acquiring cold source from return air. Int J Min Sci Technol
2013;23(3):453–6.
[13] Wang K, Jiang SG, Zhang WQ, Wu ZY, Shao H, Kou LW. Destruction mechanism
of gas explosion to ventilation facilities and automatic recovery technology. Int
J Min Sci Technol 2012;22(3):417–22.
[14] Wilcox DC. Turbulence modeling for CFD. La Canada: DCW Industries; 2006.
[15] Sasmito AP, Birgersson E, Ly HC, Mujumdar AS. Some approaches to improve
ventilation system in underground coal mines environment-a computational
fluid dynamic study. Tunnel Underground Space Technol 2013;34:82–95.
[16] Parra MT, Villafruela JM, Castro F, Mendez C. Numerical and experimental
analysis of different ventilation systems in deep mines. Building Environ
2006;41:87–93.