SME Annual Meeting

Feb. 27-Mar. 02, 2011, Denver, CO

Preprint 11-101
VENTILATION AND CLIMATIC SIMULATION OF DRIFT/STOPE IN METAL MINES
R. Gunda, Univ. of Nevada Reno, Reno, NV
R. Grymko, Univ. of Nevada Reno, Reno, NV
D. Bahrami, Univ. of Nevada Reno, Reno, NV
G. Danko, Univ. of Nevada Reno, Reno, NV

MF has been applied to mine ventilation problems such as

development end ventilation (Danko et al., 2010a) and (Danko et al.,
2010b). The objective of this study is to test the capabilities of MF
applied to challenging mine ventilation problems. The coupled air, heat
and moisture simulation is a relatively complicated task because of the
tedious calculations required for momentum transport, heat exchange
between different elements, moisture transport and various spot and
linear, machine / non-machine heat sources, etc.

ABSTRACT
Due to the rapidly increasing production rates and deepening of
mine working areas, there is a drastic rise in the number of thermal
issues to be addressed for maintaining a safe mine environment. As
high temperatures and humidity in underground mines could affect the
health and performance of workers, and ultimately the production rate,
it is necessary to provide a properly controlled safe environment.
The backfilling of stopes in metal, non-metal mines results in
different thermo-physical properties for the hanging, side and foot
walls, modeling of which is not provided by any existing mine climate
simulation software. This paper presents the modeling of such a single
stope using the MULTIFLUX (MF) software, developed at the
University of Nevada, Reno. A special case is presented in this paper,
where a case study from the Homestake mine in the US with a drift
and ramp connected to a stope with high Virgin Rock Temperature
(VRT) and various spot heat sources is modeled in MULTIFLUX and
CLIMSIM, and the results are compared against each other. Another
case is presented in which the stope of the previous case is modeled
with walls, each having a different set of thermo-physical properties.
These results are compared with the former results to analyze the
effect of anisotropic properties.

CLIMSIM
CLIMSIM is a commonly used mine climate simulation software
developed and marketed by Mine Ventilation Services, Inc (CLIMSIM,
1997). There are other mine climate simulation programs such as
VUMA, Ventsim, etc. Other than the variations in their user interfaces,
they all use the same solution method of Hardy Cross network solver
and Gibsons age function for strata heat. CLIMSIM was chosen due to
its long history of presence in this field and its ease of use. CLIMSIM
does not solve for airflow, which is assumed to be constant here.
CLIMSIM gives evaluation tools that take into account the heat and
moisture variables along selected mine entries.
The software divides the airways into axial elements and within
these elements, numerical routines are iterated to develop heat
balances between the strata heat and the heat transferred to the air
stream (CLIMSIM, 1997). The program determines the dry and wet
bulb temperatures resulting from the heat and moisture transport
effects. Heating or cooling sources can be expressed as linear or
isolated points for local attributes. This program uses radial heat
transport processes in an airway surrounded by a homogeneous rock
mass, whereas the mine airways in practice are surrounded by a rock
mass that is often varied in thermo-physical properties, also being
three - dimensional in heat transfer.

INTRODUCTION
The underground work environment must be safe and hazard
free. The ventilation systems must be analyzed by modeling before
they are built. This study builds upon previous studies (Danko and
Bahrami, 2008) that have been made to control the underground
climate conditions in a single airway. A case study of the Homestake
gold mine is presented in this paper as Case 1. This case study is
based on an example to demonstrate the ventilation of Homestake
th
mines mechanized stopes, taught during a short course at the 6 US
Mine Ventilation Symposium, Marks and Shaffner (1993). This model
consists of a drift and ramp connected to a stope. The model is
simulated in two parts, the drift and ramp together in the first and the
stope in the second one. Both parts are modeled in an environment of
o
high virgin rock temperatures, around 52 C and various spot heat
sources using CLIMSIM and MF.

MULTIFLUX
MF Version 5.0 software is used to solve the coupled transport
model for the solution of air flow, temperature, and humidity
distributions. Documentation for MF is extensive due to its
implementation as a hazardous waste facility evaluation software tool.
The MF model configuration involves setting up the airflow, heat
and moisture transport processes between various elements of the
model as well as heat and moisture sources. The schematic shown in
Figure 3 depicts a few types of connections involved in the MF model.
MF provides a solution to the coupled problem of air, heat, and
moisture transport, in both in-drift and in-rock model domains. The
coupled solution between the model domains is achieved by matching
temperature, vapor pressure, heat and moisture fluxes on the common
coupling surfaces on the drift wall. MF has two main modules, NTCF
(Numerical Transport Code Functionalization) and CFD. The
NTCFmodule (Danko, 2009) is used to model and represent the rock
mass, and CFD is used for modeling the airway domains. The heat
and moisture fluxes are balanced at the common surface temperature
and partial vapor pressure at each drift wall surface node and time
instant if a transient, time-dependent problem is modeled. The NTCF
(surrogate model of the rock mass thermal response) and CFD models
are coupled on the rock-air interface by MF.

In some instances, for example backfilled stopes, different

thermo-physical properties can be present for the hanging, side and
foot walls. Modeling of such cases is not dealt with in any currently
existing mine ventilation simulation software. Such a case is modeled
as Case 2, using the MF software where the walls are assumed to
have different properties whose weighted average based on surface
area, would be the same as in Part 2 of Case 1. The effect of
averaging the properties is then studied by comparing the results of
Case 2 with the results from Part 2 of Case 1.
The design of the MF software came about to model
thermodynamic transport parameters and hazardous waste storage
facilities in Nevada (Danko, 2008). The MF modeling involves setting
up of all possible, but relevant transport processes between various
elements, providing a coupled solution between those processes, and
also the rock mass and airway model domains.

Copyright 2011 by SME

SME Annual Meeting

Feb. 27-Mar. 02, 2011, Denver, CO
moisture content of the air. In CLIMSIM, the total heat transfer
coefficient is the sum of convection and radiation processes, whereas
in MF, radiation heat transfer within the air is neglected in the
simulation. Even then, the convection heat transfer coefficient (12
2
W/m -K) alone in MF is almost equal to the total heat transfer
2
coefficient (10.11 W/m -K) of CLIMSIM. The temperature distributions
along the drift length are plotted in two parts, Figures 4a and 4b. Figure
4a shows the comparison between MF and CLIMSIM results, without
any modification in heat transfer coefficient in MF model. The
difference in the total heat transfer coefficients in the MF and the
CLIMSIM models is a disturbing effect that hampers the comparison of
the two simulation models.

Case 1 - Drift, ramp and stope Case study of a mechanized stope

from the Homestake mine
The schematic of a case study at the Homestake mine is shown
in Figures 1a and 1b. This case is modeled in two parts. The drift and
ramp are modeled together in Part 1 and the stope as a separate
section in Part 2, which are shown in Figures 1a and 1b, respectively.
In the previous mentioned example that was presented by Marks and
Shaffner (1993), a drift connected to a stope through a ramp on the
7400 level of the Homestake mine was studied with a few spot heat
sources. Various thermal parameters were measured and were
compared against the results of the CLIMSIM model. The CLIMSIM
results were a fair match with the measurement data, but parts of the
stope with a sandy foot wall gave a significantly less total wall rock
heat flow (about 30% less than the CLIMSIM prediction for heat flow)
in that example. In the current exercise, the same case was modeled
with MF and CLIMSIM.

Figure 1a. Schematic of the Drift and Ramp model Part 1 of Case 1.

Figure 2.
NUFT.

Discretization of rockmass domain around the stope in

Table 1. Input data for simulation of Part 1 and Part 2 of Case 1.

Geometry and main input data
Drift & Ramp
Stope
Length
1000 m
120 m
2
2
Cross-sectional area
9m
48 m
Perimeter
12 m
32 m
Depth in
2280 m
2260 m
Depth out
2260 m
2260 m
3
3
Friction Coefficient
0.0158 kg/m
0.0158 kg/m
Wetness Factor
0.8
0.95
Age at inlet
400 days
50 days
Age at outlet
200 days
5 days
Ventilation and airflow parametric data
3
3
Quantity
10 m /s
10 m /s
Pressure
109.4 kPa
109.4 kPa
o
o
Dry bulb temperature
27 C
24.7 C
o
o
Wet bulb temperature
25 C
23.2 C
Heat sources and thermal parametric data
Virgin Rock Temperature
o
o
52 C
52.43 C
at inlet
o
o
Geothermal step
46 m/ C
46 m/ C
o
o
Conductivity
4.000 W/m/ C
4.000 W/m/ C
-6
2
-6
2
Diffusivity
1.300*10 m /sec
1.300*10 m /sec
Node Node interval
10 m
2m
Distance from intake
Distance from intake
40m
50m
Full load power output
Machine / Non machine Sensible Heat Load
112kW
spot heat source
15kW
% utilization at equiv.
Latent Heat Load
full load 40
0 kW
Type Diesel

Figure 1b. Schematic of the Stope model Part 2 of Case1.

Part 1 of Case 1 - Drift and Ramp modeling
The schematic of the drift and ramp is shown in Figure 1a. The
drift starts from the intake shaft and ends at the stope entrance. The
total length of the drift and ramp is 1000 m. There is a 300 KVA
transformer substation located 50m from the shaft. At 90% efficiency,
the substation releases 15kW of sensible heat to the air.
Part 1 of Case 1 - Model setup
Model setup in CLIMSIM is done using the input data given in
Table 1. The data is categorized into geometry and main input data,
ventilation and airflow parametric data, and heat sources and thermal
parametric data. The same input data set is used in the MF model.
The relevant transport connections in this study are shown in
Figure 3. The rock mass, as shown in figure, is represented by the
numerical model NUFT (Nitao, 2007), which can be setup as a
separate task. The mesh for the rock mass and the stope as openings
are shown in Figure 2, with the rock mass domain discretized into a
number of grid elements. This NUFT model is the input to the NTCF
module processor. It is in this model that different parameters can be
assigned to different parts of the rock mass domain. The coupling is
done on the drift wall surface by MF. All the necessary input data for
the drift and ramp model setup are tabulated in Table 1. The 300 KVA
power load substation is modeled as a non-machine spot heat source
in CLIMSIM.
Part 1 of Case 1 - Results and comparison
The CLIMSIM and MF results of this study are compared against
each other. The results include dry bulb and wet bulb temperatures,
effective air temperature, dry wall temperature, relative humidity and

Copyright 2011 by SME

SME Annual Meeting

Feb. 27-Mar. 02, 2011, Denver, CO
Hanging wall

Heat and moisture flux qh,

All the properties at the entrance and exit of the drift as per the results
are tabulated in Table 2.
Right
side
wall

Coupling
surface

34

32

Air in drivage
Left
side
wall

Temperature, ( o C )

30

Electrical
power load
station

Heat Convection
Thermal Radiation
Moisture Convection

28

Dry bulb temperature - MF

Wet bulb temperature - MF
Dry wall temperature - MF
Effective temperature - MF
Dry bulb temperature - Climsim
Wet bulb temperature - Climsim
Dry wall temperature - Climsim
Effective temperature - Climsim

26

Foot wall,
wet

24

Figure 3. Schematic of transport model elements in the MULTIFLUX

model.
22

For the sake of matching with the results of CLIMSIM, MF heat

transfer coefficient for both dry and wet surfaces is reduced by 20%,
and the results are plotted in Figure 4b.

100

200

300

400

500
600
Distance, ( m )

700

800

100

95

Relative humidity, ( % )

90

34

32

85

RH of air - MF
RH of dry wall - MF
RH of wet wall - MF
RH of air - Climsim

80
30

Temperature, ( o C )

1000

Figure 4b. Comparison of dry bulb, wet bulb, dry wall and effective
temperature distributions from MF and CLIMSIM - Part 1 of Case 1
(with a 20% reduced heat transfer coefficient in MF).

As shown in Figure 4a, the wet bulb and effective temperatures

along the drift length are a good match. The dry bulb temperature from
MF is slightly different from CLIMSIM's near the electrical power load
station. The dry wall temperatures of MF and CLIMSIM are different,
right from the entrance of the drift, which is explained by the difference
in the heat transfer coefficient of the two software. Also, note the
ruggedness of the dry wall temperature plot from the CLIMSIM results.
This is due to the limited precision of the results displayed in the
tabulated form.

75

28

70

Dry bulb temperature - MF

Wet bulb temperature - MF
Dry wall temperature - MF
Effective temperature - MF
Dry bulb temperature - Climsim
Wet bulb temperature - Climsim
Dry wall temperature - Climsim
Effective temperature - Climsim

26

24

22

900

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

100

200

300

400

500
600
Distance, ( m )

700

800

900

1000

Figure 5. Comparison of relative humidity (RH) distributions from MF

and CLIMSIM - Part 1 of Case 1.
Strata heat values also match reasonably well, a surprising fact
considering the simplicity in the CLIMSIM strata heat model relative to
that of MF.

1000

Distance, ( m )

Figure 4a. Comparison of dry bulb, wet bulb, dry wall and effective
temperature distributions from MF and CLIMSIM - Part 1 of Case 1
(without any modifications).

Part 2 of Case 1 Stope modeling & Model setup

The schematic of the stope is shown in Figure 1b. The stope
starts from the exit of the ramp and ends at a distance of 120 m. There
is a diesel loader located 40m from the stope entrance, which utilizes
40% at an equivalent full load of112kW.

In Figure 4b, the dry bulb temperature plot from MF started

deviating slightly from CLIMSIM's plot towards the end of the drift, and
all other results are a perfect match. Distribution of relative humidity
(RH) is shown in Figure 5. MF provides the user with the relative
humidity of air, dry wall and wet wall, whereas there is no access to the
relative humidity of dry and wet surfaces in CLIMSIM. The available
parameters are plotted in Figure 5. The relative humidity of the wet wall
is shown as 100% which is obvious, and that of dry wall is 87% at the
exit, owing to the wetness factor of 0.8 on the drift walls. The moisture
content plots for air from CLIMSIM and MF are shown in Figure 6,
depicting a good agreement. As a whole, The MF results agree with
the CLIMSIM results which were in good agreement with the mine
measurement data (Marks and Shaffner, 1993). Table 2 gives the
summary of comparison of the simulation results of CLIMSIM and MF.

All the necessary input data for the stope model setup are
tabulated in Table 1. The loading machine is modeled as a machine
spot heat source. The results of this section are compared along with
the results of Case 2, which is the stope with walls having different
thermo-physical properties, presented in Section 5.2.
Case2 Stope with walls of different thermo-physical properties
This case is a stope modeled with different thermo-physical
properties on each of the four walls. A stope with different thermophysical properties is often encountered in practical situations. The
stope modeled is the same one as in Case 1 part 2. The purpose of
analyzing a stope with different thermo-physical properties is to

Copyright 2011 by SME

SME Annual Meeting

Feb. 27-Mar. 02, 2011, Denver, CO
compare the effect of using differing properties for the stope as
compared to the usual practice of averaging these properties as done
in other ventilation programs such as CLIMSIM.

Part 2 of Case 1, and Case2 - Results& comparison

Figure 7 shows the dry bulb and wet bulb temperature
distributions from average conductivity (Part 2 of Case1) and variable
conductivity (Case 2) cases. The MF results for the average and
variable conductivity cases are similar. The CLIMSIM and MF results
for the average conductivity case are in good agreement. The effective
temperature (ET) results are shown in Figure 8. There is a slight
difference in the temperatures right from the entrance of the stope.
This could be due to the difference in the formulation of effective
temperature in CLIMSIM (CLIMSIM, 1997) and MF (Danko et al.,
2010a).

27
26
25

Moisture Content, ( g/kg )

24
23

36

22
34

21
Moisture content - MF
Moisture content - Climsim

32

Temperature, ( o C )

20
19
18
17

100

200

300

400

500
600
Distance, ( m )

700

800

900

26

22

Density (kg/m )

4.4
1.40*10
2693

1.5
-6

5.50*10
2279

2.9
-7

1.01*10
2486

2.24*10

40

60
Distance, ( m )

80

100

120

29

Temperature, ( o C )

28

27

26
ET - MF - Average conductivity case
ET - MF - Variable conductivity case
ET - CLIMSIM - Average conductivity case

25

24

23

22

20

40

60
Distance, ( m )

80

100

120

Figure 8. Comparison of effective temperature distribution from MF

and CLIMSIM - Part 2 of Case 1, and Case 2.
Relative humidity (RH) variations are shown in Figure 9. The
relative humidity plots from CLIMSIM and MF are the same along the
stope length up to the diesel loader location, but the difference rose up
to almost 5% towards the end of the stope. The total moisture content
of air plots are shown in Figure 10. The difference in the moisture
content of air for CLIMSIM and MF in average conductivity case rose
to 1 g/kg towards the end of the stope. In all these figures, the MF
results for the average and variable conductivity cases are almost the
same. This concludes that the effect of averaging thermo-physical
properties for simulation does not affect the results. The heat transfer
coefficient for the average conductivity case for stope in CLIMSIM is
2
4.187 W/m -K, whereas MF gives a heat transfer coefficient of 2.21

7.3
-6

20

30

Table 3. Data altered in the Case 2, stope with different properties for
each wall.
Hanging Left side Right Side
Foot
wall
wall
wall
wall
Diffusivity (m /sec)

Figure 7. Comparison of dry bulb and wet bulb temperature plots from
MF and CLIMSIM - Part 2 of Case 1 (Average conductivity case), and
MF - Case 2 (Variable conductivity case).

Case 2 - Model setup

Table 3 gives the data used for Case 2. It consists of four different
values for conductivity, diffusivity and density, for the four walls of the
stope. However when these 4 different values are weighted averaged
based on the surface area, they match the values in Part 2 of Case 1.
This was done so that the results of CLIMSIM and MF for Part 2 of
Case 1 can be compared with that of Case 2from MF. The remaining
input for Case 2 is same as that of Part 2 of Case1.

Dry bulb temperature - MF - Average conductivity case

Wet bulb temperature - MF - Average conductivity case
Dry bulb temperature - MF - Variable conductivity case
Wet bulb temperature - MF - Variable conductivity case
Dry bulb temperature - CLIMSIM - Average conductivity case
Wet bulb temperature - CLIMSIM - Average conductivity case

24

Table 2. Comparison of the CLIMSIM and MF results at entry and exit

of the drift.
CLIMSIM
MF
Entry
Exit
Entry
Exit
Dry bulb temperature
27
31.4
27
31.22
o
( C)
Wet bulb temperature
25
31.03
25
30.94
o
( C)
Relative Humidity
84.79
97.32
84.77
98.00
(%)
Moisture content
17.67
26.58
17.66
26.41
(g/kg)
Effective Temperature
22.3
29.08
22.33
28.96
o
( C)
Total Strata Heat
312.33
295.37
(kW)
Strata Latent Heat
267.87
241.45
(kW)
Strata Sensible Heat
44.46
53.92
(kW)
Convection: 7.85
Heat transfer coefficient
Total:12.00
Radiation: 2.29
2
(W/m -K)
Total: 10.11

28

1000

Figure 6. Comparison of moisture content distribution from MF and

CLIMSIM - Part 1 of Case 1.

Conductivity (W/m/ C)

30

-6

2797

Copyright 2011 by SME

SME Annual Meeting

Feb. 27-Mar. 02, 2011, Denver, CO
2

W/m -K.The results for the two cases are tabulated in Table 4. The
strata heat values match reasonably well. The total strata heat is equal
to the latent strata heat in the MF results because the stope model in
the two cases is modeled with 100% wetness factor in the MF.

significant advantage over CLIMSIM which uses the simple

Gibson age function for the heat conduction model of the rock
mass. However, in the presented example, the simplification in
CLIMSIM causes no significant discrepancy.
Table 4. Comparison of the CLIMSIM and MF results at entry and exit
of the stope.

95
RH - MF - Average conductivity case
RH - MF - Variable conductivity case
RH - CLIMSIM - Average conductivity case

90

CLIMSIM
Dry bulb temperature
(oC)
Wet bulb temperature
(oC)
Relative Humidity
(%)
Moisture content
(g/kg)
Effective Temperature
(oC)
Total Strata Heat
(kW)
Strata Latent Heat
(kW)
Strata Sensible Heat
(kW)

Relative humidity, ( % )

85

80

75

70

65

60

55

20

40

60
Distance, ( m )

80

100

Moisture content - MF - Average conductivity case

Moisture content - MF - Variable conductivity case
Moisture content - CLIMSIM - Average conductivity case

Moisture Content, ( g/kg )

32.6

24.7

32.8

24.7

32.76

23.2

29.41

23.2

28.8

23.2

28.82

87.9

78.7

87.9

74.03

87.9

74.2

15.94

22.79

15.94

21.54

15.94

21.66

22.7

29.8

22.68

29.43

22.68

29.47

210

145.33

147.62

196.87

145.33

147.62

-13.63

REFERENCES
1.

CLIMSIM (1997). CLIMSIM for Windows version 1.0: Users

manual and general theory. Mine Ventilation Services Inc., 1997.

20

2.

Danko, G., 2008. MULTIFLUX V5.0Software Documentation

Qualification Documents. Software Tracking Number: 1002-5.000, Software Management Office, Berkeley National Laboratory.

3.

Danko, G. and Bahrami, D., 2008. Application of MULTIFLUX for

air, heat and moisture flow simulations.12th U.S./North American
Mine Ventilation Symposium, Reno, NV, June 9-11, 2008, pp.
267-274.

4.

Danko, G., 2009.Multiphase physical transport modeling method

and modeling system.US Patent Application No 20050049838.

5.

Danko, G., Bahrami, D. and Gunda, R., 2010, "Simultaneous

Ventilation, Power and Cooling Supply with Compressed Air.
Proceedings "Extracting the Science: A Century of Mining
Research, " (Ed. Jurgen Brune), SME Annual Meeting and
Exhibition, Phoenix, AZ, 2010 pp. 463-477.

6.

Danko, G., Bahrami, D. and Gunda, R. 2010, "Simulation of

ventilation and climate conditions in development-end
applications," Proceedings of the 13th U.S'/North American Mine
Ventilation Congress Symposium, 2010 Sudbury, Ontario,
Canada.

7.

Marks, J.R. and Shaffner, L.M. 1991, Controlled Recirculation at

the Homestake Gold Mine.4th U.S./North American Mine
Ventilation Symposium, June 5-7, 1989, pp. 22-27.

8.

Marks,J.R. and Shaffner, L.M. 1993. An Empirical Analysis of

Ventilation Requirements for Deep Mechanized Stoping at the
Homestake Gold Mine. 6th U.S./North American Mine Ventilation
Symposium, June 21-23, 1993, pp. 381-386.

9.

McPherson, M.J., eds. 1993.Subsurface Ventilation and

Environmental Engineering. London: Chapman & Hall, pp. 138139, 506.

19

18

16

15

20

40

60
Distance, ( m )

80

100

120

Figure 10. Comparison of moisture content variation from MF and

CLIMSIM - Part 2 of Case 1, and Case 2.
CONCLUSIONS

24.7

21

17

Exit

The research fund from NIOSH, USA under the grant number,
200-2009-30157 is gratefully acknowledged. The permission of using
NUFT from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is thankfully
appreciated. We thankfully acknowledge Dr. Pierre Mousset-Jones for
providing the measurement data from the Homestake Mine and
personal communications.

23

Variable Case
Entry
Exit

Entry

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

120

Figure 9. Comparison of relative humiditydistributions from MF and

CLIMSIM - Part 2 of Case 1, and Case 2.

22

MF
Average Case
Entry
Exit

The MF and CLIMSIM models are both successfully applied to a

complex mine ventilation, heat and humidity flow problem. Both
models run at about the same simulation speed.
There are some differences in the heat transfer coefficient values
which are internally calculated. In a drift, MF gives higher values,
whereas in the stopes, CLIMSIM is higher in the predicted heat
transfer coefficient, in spite of the fact that CLIMSIM applies
additional radiation absorption enhancement. This discrepancy is
worth further analysis to understand the merit of the different
basic equations. If this difference is eliminated by normal
adjustment, the simulation results from MF and CLIMSIM are
nearly identical.
MF allows for defining the shape of complex, three-dimensional
opening, such as stopes. Anisotropy in rock thermo-physical
properties can also be defined in the model setup. This may be a

Copyright 2011 by SME

SME Annual Meeting

Feb. 27-Mar. 02, 2011, Denver, CO
10. Nitao, J. NUFT, Flow and Transport Code V3.0s. Software
Configuration Management, Yucca Mountain Project, Software
Tracking Number: 10088-3.0S-00, Prepared at the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory (2000).

Copyright 2011 by SME