Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
  • Save
Mechanisation Vs Accidents in Mining
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Mechanisation Vs Accidents in Mining

  • 3,271 views
Published

Mechanisation Vs Accidents

Mechanisation Vs Accidents

Published in Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
3,271
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
2
Likes
2

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. A Presentation On MECHANIZATION WITH A VIEW TO PHASE-OUT MANUAL LOADING & TO IMPROVE SAFETY STANDARDS
  • 2. Introduction
    • The country’s coal production programme as envisaged in the ‘Vision Coal – 2025’ document is a quantum leap from the existing level of around 430.85 MT in 2007-08, being the terminal year of Xth 5 year plan.
    Producing Company XI Plan (2011-12) XII Plan (2016-17) XIII Plan (2021-22) XIV Plan (2025) (Production envisaged in M.T) M/s CIL 536 653 755 839 Coal Equivalent CBM/UCG - 5 15 25 M/s SCCL 41 45 47 47 Others 44 75 125 175 Grand Total 621 778 942 1086
  • 3. Introduction
    • The national coal mining scenario during past six decades reveals that share of opencast mining, which was as low as 14% in 1951, has sky rocketed to the current level of above 80%, while underground coal production declined from 76% in 1971 to 20% as on date.
    • As the future lies in underground mining and this is coupled with stringent working conditions, which needs to be highly mechanised to achieve the targets coupled with high safety standards.
    • Considering the safety scenario of the last decade, in spite of exercising utmost vigil by way of supervision and inspections in underground mine faces, 38.76% the accidents occurred on account of roof and side fall of which 58.50% accidents occurred at inbye ends. Which indirectly point outs the mechanisation at the face and thereby making less number of men exposed to such situations.
  • 4. Manual Mining
    • Carrying coal loaded baskets right at potentially high risk work sites in mines.
    • Accidents at such sites have involved many causalities and serious injuries.
    • Carrying wet coal basket with trickling coal laden water on their faces and body.
    • Present day workforce tending to wean away from such work situations because of the fast changing work culture and available alternative livelihood.
  • 5. Multifarious activities at Face
    • Human tendency is to live in compatible and comfortable environment.
    • Miners tend to quickly carryout their assigned jobs at the work places and take rest out-bye, resulting in multifarious activities and crowding of faces.
    • In the event of a dangerous occurrence, many people get involved.
  • 6. Ground movement…
    • By far, ground movement at inbye ends has resulted into many accidents, particularly in development faces and caving panels.
    • Trend in causes of fatal accidents during last 3 years (2004 – 2006) in coal mines at National level indicate that roof and side fall contributed 28% of total fatal accidents.
    • A variety of various face mechanization approaches implemented in the last decade in the underground mines of M/s SECL - another subsidiary of M/s CIL have resulted in the drastic fall of fatalities due to roof/side falls.
  • 7. Ground movement…
    • As far as M/s SCCL is concerned, cause-wise analysis in underground hand section (conventional bord and pillar workings) shows that ground movement was responsible for nearly 46% of total fatal accidents during the period between 1997 & 2006.
    Year No of fatal accidents ground movement Total accidents (all causes) Accidents Fatalities Accidents Fatalities HS MM HS MM HS MM others Total HS MM others total 1997 16 - 16 - 29 1 5 35 29 1 5 35 1998 11 - 14 - 27 - 4 31 32 - 4 36 1999 13 2 14 2 18 2 5 25 19 2 6 27 2000 12 - 17 - 17 - 9 26 23 - 10 33 2001 10 2 10 2 19 3 3 25 19 3 3 25 2002 10 - 19 - 14 - - 14 23 - - 23 2003 7 - 16 - 12 - 7 19 37 - 7 44 2004 7 - 9 - 10 - 1 11 13 - 1 14 2005 2 - 2 - 8 1 3 12 8 1 3 12 2006 5 1 5 4 12 1 3 16 12 4 3 19 Total 93 5 122 8 166 8 40 214 215 11 42 268
  • 8. Introduction of Mechanisation
    • Face mechanization such as shuttle cars, loaders etc. was introduced 60 years ago in a few mines in the country followed by Longwall, Blasting Gallery etc.
    • IX conference on safety in mines held in the year 2000 also envisaged to provide arrangements for transport of men in mines where long or arduous travel was involved.
    • Safety policy adopted by some of the coal mining companies makes switch over to coal winning including evacuation by
      • up gradation of existing technologies,
      • introduction of intermediate technologies,
      • deployment of Special methods like Blasting Gallery,
      • introduction of Continuous Miner, and
      • high wall/ punch mining.
  • 9. A Case study done at SCCL on Mechanisation Vs Accidents Reduction
  • 10. SCCL in general…
    • The underground coal mines of M/s SCCL are generally arduous in nature, exploiting steeply dipping and fairly thick seams at depths as much as about 300 m.
    • The travel distance to the work places is invariably long.
    • the accident scenario in these mines was very dismal at national level, compelling the management to adopt mechanization on pressures from the Govt. as a measure of mitigating accidents and sufferings to the work persons.
  • 11. Introduction of Mechanisation in SCCL Sl. No Type of Mechanization Year(s) of introduction No. of units as on May’ 2007 Remarks 1 SDLs/LHDs 1979 102 90% of the units were introduced from 2002/03 onwards 2 LHDs 1981 37 3 Longwall 1983 3 5 Longwall units worked till 2005 4 Blasting Gallery 1989 4 5 BG units worked till 2005 5 Roof bolters 2004 43 - 6 Continuous miner 2006 1
  • 12. Accidents Vs Mechanisation Accidents prior to mechanization (1997 to 2001) Accidents subsequent to intensive mechanization (2002 to 2006) S N Yr Ground Movement Total Fatal Accidents Fatalities Fatal Accidents Fatalities HS MM HS MM 1 1997 16 - 16 - 35 35 2 1998 11 - 14 - 31 36 3 1999 13 2 14 2 25 27 4 2000 12 - 17 - 26 33 5 2001 10 2 10 2 25 25 Total 62 4 71 4 142 156 Sl No Year Ground Movement Total Fatal Accidents Fatalities Fatal Accidents Fatalities HS MM HS MM 1 2002 10 - 19 - 14 23 2 2003 07 - 16 - 19 44 3 2004 07 - 09 - 11 14 4 2005 02 - 02 - 12 12 5 2006 05 1 05 4 16 19 Total = 31 1 51 4 72 112
  • 13. Production Vs Mechanisation Though mining in M/s SCCL started with Hand Section, gradual shift over the years to mechanization in phased manner has reduced accidents, met higher demand of coal and resulted in coal conservation in mining thick coal seams by blasting gallery methods in conjunction with remotely operated Load Haul Dumpers (LHDs). Production in Lakh Tonnes Sl. NO Year Underground Opencast Total HS MM TOTAL 1 1997-98 103.05 33.16 136.21 153.20 289.41 2 1998-99 104.95 24.59 129.54 143.72 273.26 3 1999-00 104.43 23.48 127.91 167.65 295.56 4 2000-01 114.56 23.31 137.87 164.87 302.74 5 2001-02 112.93 24.54 137.47 170.64 308.11 6 2002-03 102.58 25.50 128.08 204.28 332.36 7 2003-04 100.90 32.24 133.14 205.40 338.54 8 2004-05 89.11 40.63 129.74 223.29 353.03 9 2005-06 70.86 56.25 127.11 234.27 361.38 10 2006-07 55.74 63.02 118.76 258.31 377.07
  • 14. Safety Vs Mechanisation
    • Roof bolting - With the standardization of roof bolting activity in all underground mines, the roof fall accidents reduced considerably.
    • Breaker line bolts - To control the goaf-overriding into the working areas, the goaf edges in depillaring panels are strongly supported with breaker line supports consisting of 3 rows of roof bolts to provide the requisite resistance.
    • Hydraulic open-circuit props/powered supports - For matching the strata control needs of the Blasting Gallery (BG) and Longwall (LW) technologies.
  • 15. Safety Vs Mechanisation - IMPACT
    • Multifarious activities: Multifarious activities at faces after introduction of face mechanization are minimized.
    • Phasing out of manual loading in active working sites (faces): With a view to reducing exposure of work persons to potentially dangerous areas in mines.
    • The experienced human resource available after such phasing out as above, were gainfully redeployed in machine mining.
    • The most desired impact that of reduced mine accidents can be a reality as seen from the experience of M/s SCCL wherein, a 50 % reduction was established in the fatalities post introduction of face mechanization.
  • 16. Mechanisation – Additional issues…
    • Increased use of electricity, power gears, hydraulic etc., related safety precautions are required to be observed including ‘hands on’ training by original equipment manufacturers (OEM).
    • Suitable code of practices shall have to be formulated during transport and operation of machines, material handling during repairs, etc.
    • Considering large dimensions of machinery, adequate size of galleries shall be planned for facilitating transport of machinery in new mines.
    • Recognizing workmen comfort, machines shall have to be designed ergonomically to avoid Musco-skeletal Diseases.
  • 17. Mechanisation – Additional issues…
    • Dust, noise/vibrations & heat control should be inbuilt in the design of machinery. If required, interlocking arrangements shall have to be provided.
    • Personnel protective equipment (PPE) commensurate with technology should be provided to face workers.
    • Availability of spare parts in designated places in machine mining district may go a long way in maintaining the safety features of machinery.
    • Communication from out bye of face to other parts of the mine and to surface is very vital for timely decisions for operation, maintenance and repairs of machine.
  • 18. Mechanisation in Out-bye areas
    • To attain full utilization of the machine mining technology, M/s SCCL has taken steps to provide a matching mechanization of the outbye systems as mentioned hereunder -
    •  
      • 33 nos. of man riding systems are in operation and another 5 are under installation for easy and comfortable access from and to the working areas from surface.
      •  
      • Coal transport by belt conveyors and provision of strata bunkers instead of the conventional track haulage systems.
      •  
      • Tele-monitoring of mine gases in faces and other parts of the mine including the main return airways in mechanized depillaring panels.
  • 19. Conclusion…
    • With the introduction of appropriate face mechanization, accidents in mines have shown a positive downward trend due to reduced exposure/ concentration of workmen at active coal faces.
    • The gravity of the problem of continuing with manual work at bulk production fronts would be too intense for the mining operators and therefore, calls for an immediate switch in the production policy towards face mechanization and reducing conventional crowded work-force at the production fronts.
    • This paradigm shift appears to be inevitable, especially in the wake of having to mine from deep to very deep horizons commensurate with fast changing ergonomical challenges in the future ahead.
  • 20. Issues for consideration
      • Keeping in view the objective of phasing out manual loading, all coal companies should identify appropriate technology suitable for the prevailing geomining conditions and introduce the same in phased manner to phase out manual loading operations completely within a period of next five years.
      • While formulating the strategies for face mechanisation in underground workings, this is to be ensured that back up facilities like coal evacuation, support system, ventilation arrangements etc. are compatible with face mechanisation.
      • The scheme of face mechanisation should be based on proper scientific investigation. The scheme should also include arrangements for monitoring strata behaviour and environmental conditions. of the technology.
  • 21. Issues for consideration
      • Possibility of deployment of multi-skilled miners in the face shall be explored to reduce the exposure at hazardous area.
      • Suitable training has to be imparted to all concern persons.
      • While planning for face mechanization due considerations should be given for long term sustainability of the technology.
  • 22. THANK YOU