Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Assignment II
Submitted by:
ABHIJEET DUTTA
711MN1172
Table of Contents
1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 8
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 13
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
Conveyors ................................................................................................................................... 14
2.9
2.10
2.11
Bins ............................................................................................................................................. 15
2.12
2.13
2.14
2.14.1
Mobile Equipment............................................................................................................... 16
2.14.2
2.15
2.15.1
2.15.2
2.15.3
2.15.4
2.15.5
2.15.6
2.15.7
2.15.8
3
Windshields......................................................................................................................... 27
3.2
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.5
3.4
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
Alternative Technology....................................................................................................... 40
3.5
3.5.1
3.5.2
3.5.3
Alternative Technology....................................................................................................... 43
3.5.4
3.6
3.6.1
3.6.2
3.6.3
Alternative Technology....................................................................................................... 45
3.6.4
3.7
3.8
3.8.1
3.8.2
3.8.3
3.9
Load-Haul-Dump ........................................................................................................................ 46
3.9.1
3.9.2
3.9.3
Alternative Technology....................................................................................................... 47
3.10
3.10.1
3.10.2
3.10.3
Alternative Technology....................................................................................................... 49
3.11
3.11.1
3.11.2
3.12
3.12.1
3.12.2
3.12.3
Alternative Technology....................................................................................................... 51
3.12.4
Maintenance ........................................................................................................................ 51
3.13
3.13.1
3.13.2
3.14
3.14.1
3.14.2
3.14.3
Alternative Technology....................................................................................................... 55
3.15
3.15.1
3.15.2
3.16
3.16.1
3.17
3.18
3.18.1
3.18.2
3.18.3
3.19
4
Adapting Active Noise Control Headsets for the Mining Industry ............................................. 64
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 66
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
Monitoring .................................................................................................................................. 67
4.6
4.7
4.7.1
Barriers ................................................................................................................................ 68
4.7.2
4.7.3
4.8
4.9
4.9.1
4.9.2
4.9.3
Alternative Technology....................................................................................................... 70
4.10
Chutes ......................................................................................................................................... 70
4.10.1
4.10.2
4.10.3
Alternative Technology....................................................................................................... 73
4.11
Compressors/Compressed Air..................................................................................................... 73
4.11.1
4.11.2
4.11.3
Alternative Technology....................................................................................................... 75
4.12
Crushers ...................................................................................................................................... 75
4.12.1
4.12.2
4.12.3
Alternative Technology....................................................................................................... 79
4.13
Hoppers ....................................................................................................................................... 80
4.13.1
4.13.2
4.13.3
Alternative Technology....................................................................................................... 81
4.14
Mills ............................................................................................................................................ 82
4.14.1
4.14.2
4.14.3
Alternative Technology....................................................................................................... 83
4.15
Motors ......................................................................................................................................... 83
4.15.1
4.15.2
4.15.3
4.16
Pumps .......................................................................................................................................... 84
4.16.1
4.16.2
4.16.3
Alternative Technology....................................................................................................... 85
4.17
Alternative Technology....................................................................................................... 84
4.17.1
4.17.2
4.17.3
4.17.4
Alternative Technology....................................................................................................... 87
References ........................................................................................................................................... 88
Page 5 of 89
List of Figures
Figure 1: Haul Truck ................................................................................................................................. 19
Figure 2: Haul truck with vinyl-covered material installed in the area in front of the operator. ............... 20
Figure 3: Haul truck with vinyl-covered material installed in canopy above the operator. ....................... 21
Figure 4: Partial engine enclosure. ............................................................................................................. 22
Figure 5: Haul truck with sound-absorbing material installed in canopy and depiction of how sound may
enter the operator area, reaching operator before padding. ......................................................................... 22
Figure 6: Heavy conveyor belt barrier. ...................................................................................................... 24
Figure 7: Fiberglass blanket barrier. .......................................................................................................... 24
Figure 8: Plexiglas motor cover. ................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 9: One-inch-thick quilted fiberglass blanket being removed for testing. ....................................... 25
Figure 10: Quilted fiberglass material in the operators area. .................................................................... 26
Figure 11: Quilted fiberglass material in the lower front of the operators area of bolter 2. ..................... 26
Figure 12: Wind Shields for Protection ..................................................................................................... 27
Figure 13: Wind Shields for protection...................................................................................................... 28
Figure 14: Continuous Miners - Auger Type ............................................................................................. 38
Figure 15: Areas Where Retrofit Noise Controls can be Applied to an Auger-Type Continuous Miner .. 38
Figure 16: Installation of Wear Strips on Pan Line.................................................................................... 39
Figure 17: Full Coverage Treatment to Both Upper and Lower Pan Lines ............................................... 39
Figure 18: Sand-Filled Auger Cutting Head .............................................................................................. 40
Figure 19: Areas Where Retrofit Noise Controls May be Applied on a Continuous Miner Drum Type 41
Figure 20: Constrained-Layer Damping of Conveyor Pan Using Individual Strip.................................... 41
Figure 21: Example of Layering Applied to Motor Covers ....................................................................... 42
Figure 22: Constrained-Layer Damping of Conveyor Pan Using Individual Strips .................................. 44
Figure 23: Constrained-Layer Damping of Conveyor Pan Using Full Coverage ...................................... 44
Figure 24: Areas Where Retrofit Noise Controls Should be Installed ....................................................... 48
Figure 25: Absorption Material Used to Insulate Inner Surfaces of Cabs or Passenger Compartment ..... 52
Figure 26: Left side of the engine enclosure .............................................................................................. 58
Figure 27: Front and back of the steel panels insulated with 1.5-inch-thick fiberglass. ............................ 58
Figure 28: LHD partial engine enclosure, right side. ................................................................................. 59
Figure 29: Left side partial engine enclosure. ............................................................................................ 60
Figure 30: Quilted absorber inside the engine compartment. .................................................................... 60
Figure 31: Right side and top of engine compartment. .............................................................................. 61
Figure 32: In-cab one-third-octave band spectrum for LHD2 at high idle with engine compartment open.
.................................................................................................................................................................... 61
Figure 33: Open cell foam used for in-cab sound absorption. ................................................................... 62
Figure 34: Enclosed cab with glass in place .............................................................................................. 62
Figure 35: Barriers ..................................................................................................................................... 68
Figure 36: Noise Damping Material Applied at a Conveyor Transfer Point ............................................. 72
Figure 37: Noise Damping Material Applied to the Base of a Chute ........................................................ 72
Figure 38: Example of a 90-degree Elbow ................................................................................................ 75
Figure 39: Installation of a Resilient Crusher Feed Plate .......................................................................... 77
Figure 40: Installation of a Resilient Crusher Feed Cone Shell ................................................................. 78
Figure 41: Installation of One-Piece Resilient Crusher Feed Core Liner .................................................. 78
Figure 42: Barrier Curtain for Crusher Mainframe Feed Core Liner ......................................................... 79
Page 6 of 89
List of Tables
Table 1: Sound level at the haul truck operators position, surface measurement ..................................... 20
Table 2: Sound level at the haul truck operators position, underground measurement ............................ 21
Table 3: Sound level for haul truck at the operators position, surface measurement ............................... 21
Table 4: Sound level for jumbo drills and bolters at the operators position, underground ....................... 23
Table 5: Sound level of jumbo drills and bolters at the operators position .............................................. 25
Table 6: Sound level of bolters 2, 3, 4, and 5 at the operators position .................................................... 29
Table 7: Data for Example Calculations Involving Multiple Sound Sources ............................................ 34
Table 8: Sound level for LHD1 at the operators position, high idle ......................................................... 59
Table 9: Sound level for LHD2 at the operators position, high idle ......................................................... 61
Table 10: Sound level for LHD3 at the operators position, high idle, underground measurement .......... 63
Page 7 of 89
1 Introduction
One of the highest prevalent chronic diseases in the mining industry, as per National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), is Noise Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL). Some of the other
industries where high risk of NIHL exists are wood product manufacturing, building construction, and real
estate. It has been concluded after a lot of examination on the audiograms on workers that there is a need
for better noise controls and hearing conservation strategies in mining, manufacturing and construction
sectors.
One of the most common and preventable causes of NIHL is noise exposure. Though it is entirely
preventable, but once acquired, it is totally irreversible. Pressure generated by high noise caused over 96%
of workerss compensation claims for hearing loss in the early 2000s. Ageing, which is a non-work factor
also causes hearing loss. But all man-made high noises act as additives to further increase the hearing loss
of a worker at workplace. Audiometric results are the correct methodology to access the effects of NIHL
vis--vis work related and non-work related hearing losses.
People working in mines (underground or open cast mines) have the highest incident of noise-induced
hearing loss among all occupations. Nearly 80% of miners are exposed to noise levels that exceed 85 dBA.
About 25% of these miners are exposed to noise levels higher than the 90 dBA Permissible Exposure Limit
(PEL). Ninety per cent of all coal miners above the age of 50 have a hearing impairment. By the time coal
miners retire, they are nearly guaranteed a moderate hearing loss.
The use of heavy equipment, the drilling of rock, and the confined work environment all contribute to high
levels of noise exposure in mining. As a result, as many as 70% of all miners have NIHL significant enough
to be considered a disability. In one study, it was found that almost half of the workforce of these miners
never used hearing protectors. One NIOSH study found that by age 50, about 90% of coal miners and 49%
of metal/nonmetal miners had a hearing impairment (as compared with 10% of the non-occupational noiseexposed population). Simply stated, most miners have a hearing loss by retirement.
Many programs are underway to help reduce work-related noise induced hearing loss in the mining sector.
Jurisdictions are undertaking or planning a significant amount of work in inspections and auditing, targeting
highest risk sectors. Noise induced hearing loss is irreversible; therefore it is important to prevent exposure
at the earliest possible opportunities. Many awareness programs have encouraged more companies to
introduce a noise policy, and a noise control and hearing loss prevention program.
One of the major focus is to make the companies aware of the possibilities of using the higher levels
(elimination, substitution and engineering control), and encouraging them to think about opportunities. The
feasibility of engineering or administrative noise controls is related to total cost of application and overall
effectiveness of the control in reducing noise. Retrofit engineering controls have been shown to be largely
ineffective, and the development of quieter mining equipment has been slow. To date, these approaches
have not led to an acceptable reduction of NELs.
As part of these awareness campaigns, opportunities lie in training in the use of hearing protectors (eg, how to
fit properly), choosing appropriately and in customising the fitting (eg, by the use of custom-moulded devices).
Education and training have a significant role to play in preventing work related hearing loss. With rate of hearing
loss greatest in the first 10 years of exposure, it is important to prevent exposure at the earliest possible
opportunities.
Noise exposure and noise-induced hearing loss are still prevalent in the mining industry. Most of the risk
comes from the need to use heavy machinery underground, but careful design and new technology and
Page 8 of 89
materials can be used to minimise this. Some degree of residual hearing protection may well be required,
but this should be part of a well-designed hearing protection programme.
Noise arising out of prospecting mining beneficiations or metallurgical operations shall be abated or
controlled by the holder of prospecting licence or a mining lease at the source so as to keep it within the
permissible limit.
Noise level standards:
-Operational/working zone-not to exceed 85 dB (A) Leq for 8 hours exposure
-The ambient air quality standards in respect of noise as notified under the Environmental (protection)
Rules, 1986, shall be followed at the boundary line of the coal washery.
Works carried out in order to expand productivity in the mining industry have pointed out the necessity to
utilize larger machinery in parallel with improvements in technology. An increase in mechanisation also
has resulted in an increase in noise levels, leading underground and open pit mines and mineral processing
plants to generate enormous levels of noise. Occupational noise in underground mines has reached
unbearable levels due to the reverberant nature of the narrower spaces. Therefore, it is hard to find a
relatively low-noise environment for workers. Although the equipment employed in open pits are
comparatively larger in size than the ones encountered underground, they may be said to be less significant
as the noise emitted from them easily spreads hemi-spherically in the free sound field. In reality, the noise
occurring during extraction works (i.e. drilling-blasting, excavation, loading and transporting) that take
place in both open and underground pits is noteworthy when considering labour health and job performance
as the highest disease and illness rates in mining continue to be mine workers permanent or temporary
hearing loss
Additionally, it appears that noise can account for quickened pulse rates, increased blood pressure and a
narrowing of the blood vessels. Workers exposed to noise sometimes complain of nervousness,
sleeplessness and fatigue. Therefore, it is of foremost importance to conduct research on this matter to give
suggestions to mine management with respect to the health of workers and maximizing the competence in
productiveness. In comparison with the levels of noise exposure in various industries (airport, forest
machinery, cement industry, foundry, textile industry, printing, metal plate workshop, ship engine room,
riveting workshop), noise levels encountered in the open cast mining industry are second only to that
encountered near jet engines at airports. Noise-induced hearing loss usually occurs initially at high
frequencies (3k, 4k, or 6k Hz), and then spreads to the low frequencies (0.5k, 1k, or 2k Hz).
1.1
Sources of Noise
Noise, defined as undesirable sound, is a by-product in many industries. This is particularly true for mining.
Many miners are exposed not only to loud but sustained noise levels. Most of the large excavation
equipment utilized at open pits are not said to be responsible for the excessive noise levels as they are
mostly equipped with noise-protected operator cabs. However, excavators with lower capacity and mobile
diesel-powered machines have been accepted as the primary noise sources in surface mining activities. On
the other hand, equipment such as continuous miners, stage loaders, shearers, compressors, fans and
pneumatic drilling machines may be counted as the main contributors to excessive noise levels in
underground mining. Additionally, equipment like vibrating screens, rotating breakers and mills which are
commonly in use in most of the mineral processing plants may be defined as the important sources of noise.
The length of period during which workers are exposed to excessive noise is rather important as it takes a
foremost role in distinguishing the type of hearing loss being either temporary or permanent.
Page 9 of 89
The parameters which are effective for hearing loss due to noise are exposure period, noise level, age of
workers and physical condition of workers (existence of other illness etc.). For most effects of noise, there
is no cure. However, prevention of excessive noise exposure is the only way to avoid health damage.
1.2
Upon receiving an acoustic signal, pressure changes occurring in the auditory canal move the drum
membrane. The bones called hammer, anvil and stirrup, which are located behind the eardrum are connected
in a chain between the tympanic membrane and the round window of the cochlea. In the case of these bones
being exposed to noise, they start to vibrate. Therefore, the sound energy caused by this vibration is
converted into mechanical energy and then into hydraulic energy in the cochlea. The motion in the cochlea
will affect the small hair-like cells in the cochlea depending on the electrical signal frequency. When a cell
is stimulated it sends an electrical signal to the brain. The loss of hearing in the inner ear, apart from natural
diseases, may be faced in the case of small hair-like cells becoming damaged or weakened due to excessive
noise levels for a long period. Noise-induced hearing loss is 100% preventable but once acquired, hearing
loss is permanent and unfortunately irreversible. Miners have to put up with a variety of noise sources
during their daily working environment. Contrary to popular thought, hearing loss arising from instant high
levels of noise rarely happen; however, the main cause is prolonged levels of sound.
1.3
Efforts made to reduce excessive noises from any source to tolerable levels by changing acoustic features
and decreasing the period of exposure may be covered as the principles of noise control. It should be
noted that noise controls and administrative actions should be the first line of defence. These methods
may be classified into three groups:
a) Equipment practice: This practice relates directly to the selection and utilization of mining machinery
to obtain reduced noise levels.
b) Operational and administrative practice: This practice is also related to the design and execution of the
mining operation to obtain reduced noise exposure.
c) Engineering noise controls: Removing hazardous noise from the workplace by means of engineering
controls is the most effective way to prevent noise-induced hearing loss. For this purpose, equipment
hardware changes are implemented, especially to reduce machine noise emission levels.
1.4
Noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) is the most common occupational illness in the United States, with 30
million workers exposed to excessive noise levels [NIOSH 1996] every day. Of particular concern is the
mining industry; which has the highest prevalence of hazardous noise exposure of any major industry sector
[Tak et al. 2009] and is second only to the railroad industry in prevalence of workers reporting hearing
difficulty [Tak and Calvert 2008]. This document is for operators, safety personnel, and mechanics in the
mining industry who are not specialists in noise control engineering or acoustics. Evaluations of successful
and unsuccessful attempts at controlling noise on several large, underground metal mining machines are
detailed to illustrate the basic principles of noise control.
Once personnel understand the guidelines and principles of noise control, they will be able to
evaluate the extent of a noise problem;
Page 10 of 89
1.5
The three elemental components to consider when devising an engineering noise control are source, path,
and receiver, which interact with each other to produce a unique situation for a given environment; the same
source can yield different sound levels when the path or the location of the receiver is changed. Engineering
noise controls can be implemented to reduce the amount of sound energy generated by the noise source and
to divert the flow of sound energy from the propagation path, all with the aim of protecting the receiver
(worker) from being exposed to high levels of sound energy.
1.6
Noise Dosimeters
To determine the amount of noise workers are exposed to during the course of their day, workers can wear
noise dosimeters. A dosimeter is designed to be worn on a person during all or part of a work shift, and it
measures and stores sound levels and computes total noise exposure. Dosimeters are especially useful in
environments where the noise levels are variable or intermittent or when workers move to and from different
areas of a plant or mine during the course of a work shift. If sound levels are constant and the worker does
not move, a sound level meter (SLM) can also be used to assess exposure. The procedure for using SLMs
to measure noise and assess exposure is detailed in Appendix C. Dosimeters and SLMs incorporate filters
or weighting networksthat can be applied to affect the meters sensitivity to desired sound frequencies.
The weighting is performed according to accepted standards. The A-weighting network approximates
human perception of the loudness of low level sounds (around 40 dB). It is the most widely used weighting
network because it is a reasonable estimator of the risk of NIHL. Without weighting in place, the SLM
would indicate the same sound pressure level for sound waves having the same amount of physical energy
regardless of the sounds frequency. In reality, very low and high frequency sounds are less damaging than
mid frequency sounds. so A-weighting de-emphasizes the extreme frequencies. In the test examples in the
following sections, the A-weighted scale is used, resulting in A-weighted decibels symbolized by units of
dB(A).* A dosimeter must be calibrated before and after each measurement period with a calibrator that
fits the specific type of microphone for the meter. The pre-measurement calibration is necessary to ensure
the instrument is functioning properly prior to making measurements. The post-measurement calibration is
especially important in a mining environment because the instrument is likely to be subjected to jolting and
jarring during a work shift and because temperature or humidity extremes could affect the accuracy of the
meter. The microphone, the most fragile part of the instrument, is especially susceptible to damage. The
documentation provided by the instrument manufacturer should give the valid operating ranges for
Page 11 of 89
humidity, pressure, and temperature. The SLM should be calibrated by a qualified laboratory at the interval
recommended by the manufacturer, typically every 1-2 years. Their calibration should be traceable to the
National Institute of Standards and Technology. Proper placement of the dosimeter microphone is
important. ANSI S12.19-1996, Measurement of Occupational Noise Exposure, specifies that the
microphone should be located on the mid-top of the wearers most noise-exposed shoulder. The microphone
should be set approximately parallel to the plane of wearers shoulder, and the cable should be routed and
fastened such that it does not interfere with job performance or create a safety hazard. For miners, the best
place to attach the dosimeter case is usually the miners belt.
1.7
The mining industry recognizes how important engineering noise controls are in reducing noise exposure
during underground operations. But, because of the relatively small market for mining equipment,
manufacturers have limited incentives to develop less noisy machinery or more innovative noise controls.
Also, the specialized equipment designs imposed by the sometimes-hostile mining environment has limited
the transfer of noise control technologies from other industries. Despite this lack of proven control
technologies, mine operators work with whats available to try to create noise control solutions at the mine
level. However, many operators install noise treatments without knowing how much noise reduction to
expect or how much noise reduction is actually achieved after installation. In some cases, because of
improper material selection, placement, or installation, the noise treatment reduces sound littleif any. In
other cases, noise treatments are applied when the source sound level does not warrant treatment, thus
wasting effort and resources. Unsuccessful noise controls cost the industry time and money, and they do
nothing to decrease workers risk of NIHLthough they give the false impression that the problem, if there
is one, has been addressed.
Page 12 of 89
Introduction
Bridges et al (1998) identified certain areas specifically as being likely sources of noise emission. These
included:
Mobile equipment
Conveyor systems
Bins
Coal preparation plant (this building includes vibrating screens, vibrating centrifuges etc.)
Train loading
2.2
Equipment Specifications
To minimize noise generation, all potential vendors were required to guarantee noise levels for their
equipment, and the values provided by the vendors were a major factor in the choice of equipment
purchased. In several cases the company purchased equipment which was not the lowest price, but had the
lowest noise emissions.
This applied to mobile as well as fixed plant. Where equipment suppliers could not guarantee acceptable
noise levels from standard designs, the company engaged in negotiations with the equipment manufacturers,
in order to modify their equipment to meet the noise requirements. For mobile equipment, this involved the
use of acoustic panels, shrouds and louvres. One major approach adopted was to shut the dragline down
between the hours of 1 pm on Saturdays and 7 am on Mondays during the initial few months when the
dragline was working in unshielded areas. This represented 42 hours out of a week of 168 hours, or 25% of
the total available time, which was a significant financial and productivity sacrifice on the part of the
company.
2.3
2.4
Industrial Area
The main industrial area, including raw and clean coal stockpiles, is enclosed on the southern and eastern
sides by a 20 metre high embankment. Not only has this resulted in reduced noise emissions in these
Page 13 of 89
directions, but it has also provided a visual barrier, so that the visual amenity of the area from the south and
east is that of a rolling hill, with only the very tops of one or two structures visible.
2.5
The truck dump station is located at the eastern end of the property closest to the pit, minimising noisy truck
movements across the site. The dump hopper has been constructed in a pit, so that much of the structure,
hopper, and unenclosed equipment is below ground level. The station, and trucks moving in the area around
the station have also been shielded by an embankment. The truck dump area is enclosed on three sides by
a double-sheeted structure, and is only open to the west (the mine side). Thus the noise from dumping is
constrained within the dump station and to the west. This enclosure has the additional advantage of
minimizing any dust generated during the dumping operation. The design of the structure was also selected
to blend into the surrounding landscape.
2.6
Dragline Operations
The dragline operation commenced at the eastern end of the lease, so that the dragline would quickly be
hidden behind the spoil piles acting as noise barriers. Contouring and seeding of the spoil piles will
quickly give them a more natural appearance.
2.7
Coal Transport
It is common practice to use truck haulage to deliver coal to the processing plant. However, to constrain
truck noise within the pit as much as possible, at Bengalla the coal is transported to the nearby truck dump
station for primary crushing, and then is carried by a 4 km long overland conveyor to the stockpile and
processing area.
2.8
Conveyors
All elevated conveyors are fully enclosed outside the coal preparation plant. The overland raw coal
conveyor is sheeted on the southern/eastern side, and roofed. The stockpile area conveyors, which are inside
the main industrial area embankment, cannot be enclosed due to the operations of the stackers and
reclaimers. The fully enclosed elevated gantries include a concrete floor and corrugated steel sheeting walls
and roof. All conveyors have been constructed with specially machined idlers, while the overland conveyor
has been constructed with idlers which are also specially balanced. The drive stations for all conveyors are
located either in fully enclosed transfer stations or at ground level, inside the main embankment at the
stockpile area.
2.9
It has been standard practice to enclose coal preparation plants in the region down to first floor level, leaving
the ground floor level open for maintenance access. In this case, the plant has been fully enclosed to ground
level on the sensitive eastern and southern sides, and partially on the western and northern sides. This has
been achieved without compromising maintenance access. In addition, noise modelling had shown that the
translucent sheeting often provided to improve the lighting inside plants was a source of increased noise
transmission to the exterior, so the plant is entirely clad in steel sheeting. No natural ventilation could be
permitted, as the vents would have allowed noise emission, so ventilation fans are included in the upper
level of the preparation plant. Transfer stations have been similarly treated, with minimal openings for
access and maintenance. Inside the preparation plant, the floors are constructed of concrete wherever
possible, with minimal penetrations, to prevent noise transmission between floors and to the ground floor
openings. The centrifuges, expected to be a noise generator, have been placed between two concrete floors.
Page 14 of 89
2.11 Bins
Other than the truck dump hopper, which has already been discussed, the bins designed for the site included
Plant feed surge bin
Plant rejects bin
Train loadout bin
Of these, the train loadout bin is located outside the main embankment, to the south-east of the industrial
area, while the others are inside the main embankment. The train loadout conveyor head end is not fully
enclosed, however, the drive station is located back inside the embankment in the industrial area, reducing
noise emissions and also reducing the size of the bin support structure. The train loading system, which is
hydraulically controlled, includes a 700t capacity bin above a 100t capacity weigh flask to accurately load
each wagon. There is the potential for noise generation from two sources, coal filling the weigh flask, and
coal from the weigh flask loading the wagon. The hydraulic pump which powers the system is fully enclosed
below the bin. The bin level control system operates such that the bin itself is never empty, so coal entering
the bin falls on coal, which minimises noise generation. The wagon loading takes place in an acoustically
lined tunnel, which constrains noise emissions to the north-east and south-west. The ventilation provided
to this tunnel was carefully designed to permit noise emissions only to the north-west, the direction of the
mine industrial area. (Colin, 2000)
The plant feed surge bin and the plant rejects bin both have fully enclosed feed conveyors, as mentioned
earlier. In both cases, the conveyor drives are located at ground level, within the embankment. The bins are
not acoustically lined, and the operating philosophy has been to endeavour to maintain a bed of material in
these bins to minimise noise generation.
Page 16 of 89
Page 17 of 89
This low sound power was achieved generally in the same way as the other machines described above, with
engine enclosures, radiator louvres and treated cooling air outlets under the trucks chassis.
Some ongoing problems have been experienced with the machines, mainly with the unit regularly used to
haul reject material. This material has a high water content and occasionally spills a small amount onto the
radiator louvre, covering the sound absorbent material and encouraging dust to settle on the louvres. Regular
cleaning has proved to be the most practical solution, however careful cleaning is required in a number of
barely accessible areas and results in unwanted downtime and a slight loss of production.
2.14.1.7 Water Carts
Water carts of 90 tonne capacity are used to minimise dust from haul roads in the mine while producing a
sound power no greater than 112 dB(A). Engine, exhaust and radiator noise has been treated in these
machines in a similar manner to the dump trucks, but with a hydraulically cooled braking system water
carts produce less noise than dump trucks while travelling downhill. As for the other machines, regular
cleaning of all noise control components is required to maintain satisfactory performance.
Page 18 of 89
for processing. At other times, noise from this bin is insignificant. Similarly, noise levels generated at the
train loadout bin have been acceptable, although it is audible at times at a few close properties. The train
loading process has also been demonstrated to produce acceptable environmental noise levels, and the
acoustic tunnel shielding noise from the filling of the rail wagons is effective in reducing noise levels,
especially to the south-east and east where the town and several properties are located. The plant rejects bin
itself is satisfactory from a noise perspective, but the process of placing rejects in the trucks for disposal
has proved to be noisy. Remedies for this are still under investigation at the time of writing this paper, and
may include additional shrouding at the bin/truck interface, or modifications to the truck body.
2.14.2.3 Stockpile Machines
The stackers produce an average of 2 decibels over the expected levels, although stacker noise is strongly
dependent on the condition of idlers which therefore must be carefully maintained. The reclaimers have
also produced 2 to 3 decibels more than expected, with dominant sources of noise including the main bucket
chains and sprockets and the interface chute between the reclaimer and the conveyor. Of these sources, only
the chains and sprockets have the potential to be audible at a residential property due to their intermittent
noise character. These machines have been the subject of a few noise complaints, however, these have
occurred during strongly noise-enhancing atmospheric conditions. The machines are currently being
reviewed by the mine.
possibly due to fluctuations in engine output between the tests. At high idle, the vinyl-covered material had
no measurable effect on the sound level.
Figure 2: Haul truck with vinyl-covered material installed in the area in front of the operator.
Table 1: Sound level at the haul truck operators position, surface measurement
The third haul truck had the same 0.75-inch-thick, vinyl-covered material in the area in front of the operator
as the previous two haul trucks. However, haul truck 3 also had vinyl-covered material attached to the
underside of the canopy (see Figures 3 and 4). NIOSH researchers compared sound levels measured at the
surface with those measured underground under the same conditions: at the operator position at low and
high idle, with and without the vinyl-covered material in place.
Page 20 of 89
Figure 3: Haul truck with vinyl-covered material installed in canopy above the operator.
Table 2: Sound level at the haul truck operators position, underground measurement
Table 3: Sound level for haul truck at the operators position, surface measurement
truck had a partial engine enclosure similar to the one shown in Figure 5, fashioned from a piece of 0.5inch-thick rubber that NIOSH researchers believed to be used conveyer belt material. Measurements were
made with and without the barrier in place. The results showed that the barrier reduced the sound level
reaching the operator by about 1 dB(A).
Figure 5: Haul truck with sound-absorbing material installed in canopy and depiction of how sound may enter the operator area,
reaching operator before padding.
The test results showed that the underground environment increased sound levels at both low and high idle.
NIOSH researchers attribute this increase to the reverberation of sound that occurs in enclosed spaces. The
amount of increase also depended on whether the machine was running at low idle or high idle. This is due
to the different frequency content associated with the noise emitted at high and low idle and how each of
these is affected by the mine environment. Since the environment and operating conditions can have a
significant impact on equipment noise, controls should be assessed in the environment where they are used
under all operating conditions.
Page 22 of 89
Page 23 of 89
Page 24 of 89
NIOSH researchers could directly measure its effectiveness at reducing noise. In all of the cases, the
absorptive material was a 1-inch-thick quilted fiberglass blanket.
The face drill measurements were taken underground during the drilling cycle, and the bolter results were
measured above ground with the percussive hammer operating. Face drill 2 had a removable windshield,
so the effect of the absorptive material in the canopy was measured with and without the windshield. The
data show the sound-absorbing material did not significantly change the sound levels at the operators
position in this case.
Page 25 of 89
The data indicate that the absorption around the operator has essentially no effect on the sound level during
the drilling process. During the bolting process, the measured sound level at the operators ear was 0.3
dB(A) higher with the material in place. However, this difference is most likely due to changes in the noise
produced at the drill steel, not due to the installation of the sound-absorbing material.
Sound level of jumbo drills and bolters at the operators position, absorptive material around operator
Figure 11: Quilted fiberglass material in the lower front of the operators area of bolter 2.
The table shows the levels were virtually unchanged in each case. This is not surprising. Most of the drilling
and bolting noise probably reaches the operator by bending around the windshield or by first reflecting off
the rib. The noise reflected from the front lower area to the operator is most likely minimal.
Page 26 of 89
Sound level of bolter 2 at the operators position, absorptive material in lower front of cab
2.15.8 Windshields
The most common noise control installed on the tested face drills and bolters was a windshield. The amount
of noise reduction achieved varied greatly depending on how the windshield was designed.
Page 27 of 89
Most of the windshields were designed to be flipped up into the canopy. This feature allowed the operator
an unobstructed view while operating and tramming the machine. The windshield on bolter 2 had gaps
between sections that were arranged vertically and did not wrap around the operator station (see Figure 29).
The windshield of bolter 3 had no gaps between sections of windshield, and the windshield wrapped around
the operator (see Figure 30). Bolter 5s windshield was continuous, but it did not wrap around the operator
station. Strips of belting material had been installed on the sides of the operator station on bolter 5 in an
effort to block noise. The greatest noise reductions were achieved for bolter 3, face drill 1, and face drill 4,
all having wrap-around windshields with no gaps. The only difference between the windshields of bolters
2 and 5, was that bolter 2s windshield had gaps between panes and bolter 5s windshield was continuous.
Bolter 5 experienced a 1-dB(A) greater noise reduction than bolter 2 when drilling.
Page 28 of 89
Covers for electric-motor-powered hydraulic pumps constructed of a heavy barrier material, such as
conveyor belting, as opposed to an absorptive material such as fiberglass, produced the most substantial
sound level reductions. However, on the tested machines the A-weighted sound levels created by the
untreated motors were below 85 dB(A). Having the environment analyzed for noise levels prior to incurring
the expense of noise treatments. If multiple noise sources generate sound levels of 85 dB(A) individually,
it may be necessary to treat each of these sources to reduce the operators noise exposure. For example,
four 85-dB(A) noise sources operating together would result in a sound level of 91 dB(A). However, on a
case-by-case basis, the contribution of each noise source to the operators noise exposure should be
determined before installing noise controls. With bolters and jumbo drills, the sound level due to drilling
and bolting often reaches 100 dB(A), whereas the pumps generate a sound level less than 85 dB(A).
Therefore, the noise exposure due to the electric-powered-hydraulic pumps is insignificant and, in this case,
noise controls should not be applied to the pumps. The application of fiberglass absorptive material to the
canopy, seat area, and lower portion of the open cab had little to no effect on the sound level at the operators
ear during drilling and bolting. To be effective at reducing the sound level reaching the operator, soundabsorbing materials must be placed on surfaces that reflect sound toward the operators hearing zone.
Furthermore, a significant portion of the noise at the operators ear must be due to noise reflected from
these surfaces. If the majority of the noise at the operators station arrives directly from the face or from
reflections from the rib, treating the surfaces around the operator will have virtually no effect on the sound
level at the operators ear. For machines with open cabs, such as those installed on the face drills and roof
bolters tested, absorptive materials will be of limited benefit. For face drill 2, a reduction of nearly 1 dB(A)
was achieved with absorptive material in the operator area with only the electric-motor-powered hydraulic
pumps in operation. This reduction probably occurred because the noise from the pumps must reach the
operator by an indirect path. Line of sight with the pumps is obscured by body of the machine. As this noise
Page 29 of 89
reflects off surfaces around the operator, the material around the operator reduces the noise. However, when
the operator began drilling, the primary noise source became drilling noise. Since drilling noise reaches the
operator mainly via a direct path, or by bending around the windshield, the absorbing material around the
operator would have no effect. In general, well-designed windshields were the most effective noise controls
implemented on the drills and bolters because they block drilling and bolting noise from reaching the
operator. Also, the noise generated by drilling and bolting is predominantly high frequency in nature. High
frequency sounds are easier to block and absorb because of their shorter wavelengths. The windshields that
had a gap between an upper and a lower pane of glass were the least effective at reducing sound levels
because the gaps allow drilling and bolting noise to pass through. The conveyor belt strips serving as a
makeshift enclosure on bolter 5 were installed in an attempt to supplement the noise reduction due to the
windshield. Because no sound level measurements were taken without the strips in place, the noise
reduction they offer is unknown. NIOSH researchers assume they have little, if any, effect on sound levels
reaching the operators ear because of gaps between the strips. The strips should be overlapped a few inches
to improve the noise reduction due to their use.
Page 30 of 89
3.2
A barrier is a solid obstacle that is at least somewhat impervious to sound and interrupts the direct path
from the sound source to the receiver. The sound transmission loss (TL) of a material is a measure of its
ability to block sound. To block sound most effectively, the barrier should be
placed as close as possible to either the source or receiver;
assembled to be as tall and wide as practical so it extends well beyond the direct source-receiver path;
and
constructed of a material that is solid and airtight. Low frequency sounds are difficult to block with
barriers because low frequency sounds pass directly through and bend around obstacles relatively easily.
This is why the bass tones from a passing car stereo are audible even inside buildings. Mid to high frequency
sounds, which often dominate a workers noise exposure, cannot pass through or bend around barriers as
easily as low frequency sounds. In general, adding mass to a barrier improves its ability to block noise.
Another way to improve the TL of a barrier is to use multiple layers of material with each layer separated
from the others using a compliant material such as foam. This method decouples the vibration of each layer
from the other layers and, therefore, increases the TL.
Sound-absorbing treatments are usually made of porous materials that absorb incident sound energy and
reduce the reverberation due to sound reflected from surfaces. Fiberglass and open-cell foam are often used
for sound absorbers. A materials degree of sound absorption depends on its flow resistance and thickness,
the way it is mounted, and the frequency of the incident sound. Thicker sound absorbing materials are
needed to absorb low frequency sounds. For frequencies above about 1 kHz, 1-inch-thick sound absorbing
material has sufficient sound absorption. Two-inch-thick sound-absorbing material has good absorption for
frequencies above about 500 Hz. Protective facings on sound absorbing foam tend to improve the sound
absorbing capabilities of the material at lower frequencies. To improve the sound absorption of an installed
material, the material can be mounted with an air space between it and the surface behind it. To achieve the
best results, the material should be spaced one-quarter wavelength from the surface behind it. In this case,
the wavelength is based on the lowest frequency of interest. In addition, the optimal absorption of a material
occurs when the thickness is equal to one-quarter wavelength for the frequency of interest.
Page 31 of 89
Or,
It in some instances it can be impractical to install material with the optimal thickness or spacing to absorb
low frequency sounds. For example, the optimal material thickness for noise at 1 kHz is roughly 3.5 inches
and the optimal material thickness for noise at 500 Hz is about 7 inches. Knowing the frequency content of
a noise problem enables one to select a sound-absorbing material that has sufficient absorption at the
frequencies where the noise energy is greatest.
3.3
The Mine Safety and Health Administrations (MSHA) Noise Control Resource Guide series is a
compendium of resource information and guidance for reducing miners noise exposures at coal and metal
and nonmetal surface mines, underground mines, and mills and preparation plants. The Noise Control
Resource Guides represent the Agencys continuing efforts to assist mine operators in lowering noise
exposure, preventing miner hearing loss, and achieving compliance with the Occupational Noise Exposure
Standard.
The guide helps to:
Weighted Average over eight hours (TWA8) of 90 dBA (100% Dose) and establishes an Action Level (AL)
at a TWA8 of 85 dBA (50% Dose). The operator is required to enroll affected miners in a Hearing
Conservation Program if the AL is met or exceeded. If the PEL is exceeded, the mine operator is required
to use all feasible engineering and/or administrative controls to reduce miners exposure to the PEL. The
Noise Control Resource Guides deal with noise controls that are available on types of mining equipment
typically used in different mining environments. The first guide covers surface mining; the second,
underground mining; and the third, mills and preparation plants. These guides will reference the type of
mining equipment and noise controls that are available from the manufacturer of the equipment or as a
retrofit for the equipment. The guides do not address generic administrative controls that are universally
accepted as being effective, i.e. rotation of workers, time limitations, distance, etc. However, if specific
administrative controls have been shown to provide significant noise reduction, these administrative
controls will be discussed with the equipment or the process. The guides also contain appendices that list
equipment manufacturers, noise control products, aftermarket manufacturers, reference sources, and
contact information; however, these lists are not all inclusive
For these reasons, each of the machine and noise controls shown in this guide do not have specified noise
reductions. Such figures are only obtainable after a complete acoustical investigation is conducted on each
individual machine. Each noise control case study has a set of conditions that are unique to it. Since the
noise standards treat engineering controls equally with administrative controls, one may use either
engineering or administrative controls or a combination of both to reduce miners exposures. Each noise
control guide is a valuable source of information for mine operators to use when deciding what type of
mitigative action is best suited for the conditions encountered at their operation. In addition to the
applicability of the control, the operator will need to consider the specific materials used when installing an
engineering control. It is important to remember that the effectiveness of any engineering control used to
reduce noise exposures is dependent on the appropriately selected, correctly installed, and properly
Page 33 of 89
maintained acoustical material. As with most everything used in the mining industry, if an effective
maintenance program is not put in place, the noise control will not last. Sometimes noise controls are
expensive. It is in the operators best interest to maintain the controls so as to reap the benefits of their
investment.
The miners exposure [S1 + S2 + S3 + S4], computed in terms of percent dose compared to the permissible
exposure level (PEL), with a 90 dBA threshold for 8 hours, is 150% [50 + 50 + 50 +0]. By treating only the
highest sound level source (S3) by application of an engineering noise control and reducing it from 100
dBA to 97 dBA (S3 mod), the miners exposure [S1 + S2 + S3 mod + S4] would be 133% [50 + 50 + 33 +
0]. However, if the source to which the miner is exposed for most of the time (S1) is modified to obtain a
3 dBA reduction from 90 to 87 dBA [S1 mod], the impact is to reduce the miners exposure [S1 mod +S2
+ S3 + S4] to 100% [0 + 50 + 50 + 0]. Actually, a noise control yielding only a 1 dBA reduction applied to
(S1) would achieve the same result. If sources (S1) and (S2) are treated by 3 dBA each and reductions from
90 dBA to 87 dBA and from 95 dBA to 92 dBA obtained, the miners resultant exposure [S1 mod + S2
mod + S3 + S4] would be 83% [0 + 33 + 50 + 0]. It is very important when conducting noise control work
to examine the makeup of the miners full shift noise exposure. The exposure may not be based solely on
the highest sound level or the longest exposure time. It is the total noise dose, not just the individual sound
levels or exposure times.
Page 34 of 89
A material designed to absorb sound waves. It is not intended to be used for blocking sound waves. Some
examples of absorption materials are foam and fiberglass. It may be used inside a cab or enclosure to
prevent the reverberation of sound waves.
A material designed to block sound waves. It does not absorb sound waves. A typical use of barrier
materials would be on the firewall of a bulldozer to block low frequency engine noise. Some examples of
sound barriers are massloaded vinyl curtains, lead, plywood, glass, steel, and concrete.
A material designed to both absorb and block sound. It may be used to provide additional barrier qualities
to an enclosure or operator cab as well as absorption of radiating sound waves. Some examples are
combinations of foam, vinyl, fiberglass, and lead.
Page 35 of 89
Materials designed to damp, remove the ring from vibrating surfaces, and decouple source from structure.
Page 36 of 89
MSHA will work with mine operators, miners, labor unions, industry associations, noise partnerships,
mining equipment and noise control manufacturers, noise engineering professionals, and the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in updating this document to reflect new solutions
and experiences in controlling occupational noise exposures in the mining industry.
In underground mining, there is a wide variety of equipment used as well as site-specific mining
practices, etc. The first recommendation in controlling noise is to identify the highest noise exposure tasks
and the sources that contribute to the miners noise exposure. Thus, it may be necessary to examine all
aspects of the work shift (portal to portal) including transportation into and out of the mine, and the
equipment operated by the specific miner, as well as the equipment which may be positioned in close
proximity to the miner.
1. Engineering Controls The application of engineering noise controls to underground mining
equipment may, in general terms, be a more complicated task compared to that involving surface or
processing facilities. In the case of new equipment, it is most advantageous to purchase the equipment
from the manufacturer with the noise controls already engineered into the unit. If there is the availability
of a fully-treated operator cab and ceiling height clearances permit, then in many cases the fully-treated
operator cab would be the most effective means of protecting the miner from overexposure. In the holistic
approach, the treated cab would protect the miner from dust, temperature extremes, as well as
overexposure to high sound levels. In the case of retrofit engineering controls on existing equipment, this
may necessitate the removal of the equipment from the mine. In many instances, the noise controls can be
applied during a scheduled rebuild. In some situations, the utilization of radio remote controls to remove
the miner from the close proximity of the equipment may be considered.
2. Administrative Controls There are many possible combinations of administrative controls that may be
used to reduce a miners noise exposure. A few general techniques to consider are time management
including maintenance during idle time and work rotation. Also, dividing routine work between different
work shifts and changing actual shift lengths are other examples of administrative controls that may be
utilized. However, because of the site-specific work practices, administrative controls need to be
considered on a case-by-case basis.
Page 37 of 89
3.4
Auger-type Continuous Miners are found only in low seam, underground coal mines. Twin auger heads
with cutting bits mine and transport the coal to the gathering arms. The machine discharges the coal onto
a series of bridges for transport out of the mine.
3.4.1
3.4.2
Figure 15: Areas Where Retrofit Noise Controls can be Applied to an Auger-Type Continuous Miner
Page 38 of 89
Note: Installation of the individual strips can be done by either welding or fastening with machine screws
to the deck. If wear strips are welded in place the width and length of the damping material should be
reduced so as to prevent damage to the material and the possible emission of toxic vapors.
Figure 17: Full Coverage Treatment to Both Upper and Lower Pan Lines
Page 39 of 89
3.4.2.3 Barriers
When a continuous-mining machine is operated from an operators compartment, a barrier can be used to
block and redirect sound away from the machine operator. A clear barrier such as plexiglass can be installed
between the operator and the chain conveyor to reduce the operators exposure. If the seam height varies,
the barrier can be hinged so it can be easily lowered.
3.4.2.4 Transfer points
When a bridge haulage system is being used, proper alignment of the bridge sections will reduce the impact
noise generated as the material drops at the transfer points.
3.4.2.5 Maintenance
Good maintenance of the continuous-mining machine can help eliminate noise sources such as loose covers
causing metal-on-metal impacts. Maintaining proper tension of the conveyor chain will also reduce the
noise generated by the flights impacting the side of the pan. This will provide for a smoother transition of
the chain and flights around the tail piece.
3.5
Drum-type Continuous Miners are found in both coal and metal/non-metal mines (salt, potash, nickel).
They come in various configurations; some are operated by remote control and others operated from the
machine. Some new machines have roof bolters mounted on either side. A large spinning drum with cutting
bits cuts the material. The material falls on the floor and is picked up by the gathering arms. The machine
discharges the material either on the floor behind it or directly into shuttle cars for transport. If the material
is deposited back on the floor, a loader machine gathers it and loads it into a shuttle car.
Page 40 of 89
Figure 19: Areas Where Retrofit Noise Controls May be Applied on a Continuous Miner Drum Type
Page 41 of 89
Page 42 of 89
3.5.2.8 Maintenance
Proper maintenance of the continuous-mining machine can help eliminate noise sources such as loose
covers causing metal-on-metal impacts. Maintaining proper tension of the conveyor chain will also reduce
the noise generated by the flights impacting the side of pan and provide for a smoother transition of the
chain and flights around the tail piece.
3.6
Conveyors Chain
Conveyors transport the cut ore or coal from the gathering arms of a continuous miner to the discharge
point or from one end of a bridge section to the other. They are also utilized to transport ore or coal along
a longwall panel. They are constructed in sequences of several links of chain to a metal flight.
Page 43 of 89
Page 44 of 89
3.7
1. Special Enclosures can be made around the mechanical ventilators to reduce workers exposure.
2. Retrofit Noise Controls:The effectiveness of noise controls is dependent upon the quality of both
acoustical materials and installation. Replacement of a noisy fan with a quieter model is recommended. Use
of any noise control options in the above table is also suggested.
There is no alternative technology to such provisions.
3.8
Hand-held pneumatic drills can be found in above ground (sandstone, limestone, and dimension stone) and
underground (coal, lead, and zinc) mining environments. In some situations, it is the primary tool used to
mine and in other situations it is used as a utility tool. Electropneumatic drills can be utilized in the same
Page 45 of 89
capacity as a pneumatic drill. Although the electro-pneumatic drill is quieter by design, its penetration rate
is markedly slower than that of a pneumatic drill and may be more suited to use as a utility tool.
3.9
Load-Haul-Dump
Load-Haul-Dump machines are used primarily in conventional underground metal and non-metal mining.
They are used to scoop up ore and transport it a short distance, e.g. to load a truck or feed a crusher. They
come in a variety of sizes depending on the mine.
Page 46 of 89
Page 47 of 89
Information from the manufacturer indicates that a sound-dampened conveyor can be engineered into new
equipment of this type. For underground loaders without noise controls, this retrofit noise control is
available.
Page 48 of 89
Page 49 of 89
enclosed on some models when it is located near the operators position. The manufacturer should be
contacted regarding this installation to ensure that an overheating problem does not occur.
Page 50 of 89
C. Attenuate the stage loader scrubbers as much as possible. Direct scrubber discharge away from operator
locations.
D. Install sound-absorptive material on motors, panels, and gearboxes provided that overheating does not
occur.
E. Design the entrance doors or chain curtains on the crusher to minimize the number of loose parts that
can rattle. If possible, replace the chain curtains with conveyor belting.
F. Cover the end of the stage loader discharge with conveyor belting.
G. Attach belting to the shearer spray arms in a manner so that the belting extends above the spray arms.
3.12.4 Maintenance
Proper maintenance of machine pan lines may reduce noise levels as much as 10 dBA. Maintain proper
conveyor chain tension as both over-tensioned and under-tensioned chains can cause increased noise levels.
Adjust the pan line flight bar spacing so that flight bars do not contact all the pan line joints simultaneously.
Page 51 of 89
Figure 25: Absorption Material Used to Insulate Inner Surfaces of Cabs or Passenger Compartment
Vibration isolation and/or damping material or components may be installed on certain components such
as motors and sheet metal panels. Some standard components may be replaced with noise controlled
components.
Page 52 of 89
to-drill steel contact. 2. Holes in drill pot vacuum hoses promote clogged drill steel, thereby leading to
banging of the drill steel, an increase in cycle time, and increased exposure time.
F. Follow the OEMs recommendations for rotational speed and thrust. These recommendations are based
on the type of rock and the length of hole that is to be drilled. Also, follow the OEMs recommendations
regarding vacuum for the dry-dust collection system. Low vacuum promotes clogged drill steel.
G. It is also important to address the usage of the best possible tools for the task of drilling the holes: 1. The
use of sharp drill bits limits lateral drift of the hole, which reduces side-hole-todrill-steel contact and helps
to sustain the penetration rate.
2. Use the straightest and most dense drill steel that is compatible with the roof bolting machines drill
pot/chuck insert. The thickness of the straight drill steel limits the flexing of the steel, thereby limiting the
potential for side-hole-to-drill-steel contact.
3. It is imperative that aligned/straight hole is drilled. To help achieve this, the use of starter steel of no
more than 2-feet in length is recommended.
4. Use drill bit and chuck isolators to reduce roof bolting machine drilling noise. A drill bit isolator breaks
the steel-to-steel link between the drill bit and the drill steel. A chuck isolator breaks the mechanical
connection between the drill steel and the chuck. This effectively reduces the noise radiated by the drill
steel and the chuck and reduces the noise exposure of the roof bolter operator.
The implementation of these features/recommendations can help to facilitate the good working order of the
roof bolting machine, which is of foremost importance in the effort to reduce the exposure of the bolter
operator to high sound levels. Local dealers may be contacted for availability of state-of-the-art and other
noise control options for underground roof bolting machines.
Page 54 of 89
The scalers are powered by diesel engines, which are considered to be a primary noise source. If the
hydraulic hammer is used for scaling, then the percussive hammer noise would be considered an additional
noise source. The height of the mine seam will determine the size of the scaler needed. Local dealers can
generally advise customers on their particular application.
Page 55 of 89
Page 56 of 89
Page 57 of 89
The front and back of the steel panels that covered the left side of the engine. The right side of the engine
enclosure of 0.25-inch-thick rubber that did not completely cover the engine compartment opening.
Figure 27: Front and back of the steel panels insulated with 1.5-inch-thick fiberglass.
Page 58 of 89
Sound levels at the operators position were measured both on the surface and underground with the
engine at high idle. Measurements were made with both sides of the engine enclosure on or off, and then
with the right side off and the left side either on or off. Table 6 gives the results. The measurements on the
surface show that the full enclosure reduced the sound level by about 1 dB(A). Because these LHDs are
primarily used underground, the underground results are more important. Comparing the surface and
underground measurements, the underground environment adds about 3 to 4 dB(A) to the sound level at
the operators ear. The table shows the application of all controls in the underground environment resulted
in an attenuation of 1.5 dB(A) at the operator position.
Table 8: Sound level for LHD1 at the operators position, high idle
Page 59 of 89
With the engine at low idle, the sound level was measured underground with the machine in reverse and
the back-up alarm sounding. In this case, the sound level was 95.4 dB(A).
Page 60 of 89
Figure 32: In-cab one-third-octave band spectrum for LHD2 at high idle with engine compartment open.
Page 61 of 89
It is interesting to note that the 80 Hz one-third-octave band is the highest. Noise at the engine firing
frequency is contained in this band. Perhaps a larger muffler would have reduced the sound level of the
machine. The presence of significant low frequency energy points to the cooling fan as a likely noise source.
Neither exhaust noise at the engine firing frequency nor cooling fan noise would be significantly affected
by noise controls applied to the engine enclosure.
Figure 33: Open cell foam used for in-cab sound absorption.
With the machine underground, NIOSH researchers simultaneously measured sound levels inside and
outside of the cab with the engine at high idle. In addition, sound levels were measured above, in front, to
the right, and to the rear of the cab with and without the glass panels installed. The exterior measurements
were also used to ensure that the sound level generated by the LHD did not vary much during the course of
the measurement period. The results indicate that the completely enclosed cab produced greater than 20
dB(A) of noise reduction. Even without the front window installed, more than 10 dB(A) of reduction was
achieved.
Page 62 of 89
Table 10: Sound level for LHD3 at the operators position, high idle, underground measurement
Partial engine enclosures with openings of any size greatly compromise the noise reduction capability of
the enclosure. This is especially true underground, where sound initially directed away from an operator
can strike the walls and reflect back to the operator. To be effective at reducing the sound levels reaching
the operator, enclosures must be designed to minimize holes and gaps, especially those with line of sight
between the noise source and the operator. The most effective noise-reducing enclosures are airtight.
However, an airtight enclosure for a source that requires ventilation, such as an engine, is impractical
because it could lead to overheating and engine damage. The only openings in the engine compartment
should be those to allow cooling air into and out of the cooling package. For an LHD, if solid panels cannot
be used for the engine enclosure, a partial enclosure that incorporates overlapping materials or baffles,
similar to that suggested for haul trucks, should be used. Using a partial engine enclosure will decrease the
sound levels compared to an open engine compartment. However, an engine compartment with solid panels
is the best approach. As a rule of thumb, enclosures should be lined with sound-absorbing material to reduce
buildup of reverberant noise within the enclosure. Full coverage of all surfaces is not completely necessary
as the effect of adding sound-absorbing material decreases as more and more of the surfaces are covered.
The best approach to develop an enclosure is to first eliminate any gaps or leaks and then to add sound
absorbing material inside. For LHD2, the lined partial engine enclosure reduced the sound level by 1.5
dB(A) above ground. However, in the underground environment, the sound levels were not affected. This
is probably due to an increase in the contribution of cooling fan and exhaust noise to the sound level at the
operators ear in the underground environment. Underground, fan noise and exhaust noise can reflect from
the rib to the operator. In addition, the underground environment may have amplified the exhaust tones
corresponding to the engine firing rate. A fully enclosed environmental cab can provide 20 dB(A) or more
of noise reduction. Besides providing protection and comfort for the operator, environmental cabs are
designed to reduce exposures to occupational hazards such as dust and noise. When installing a retrofit cab,
it is wise to contact the original equipment manufacturer to ensure that the integrity of the falling object
protective structure is not compromised. In addition, once the cab is enclosed, a climate control system
should be installed to ensure the safety and comfort of the equipment operator.
The results of testing done with LHD3 indicate that the completely enclosed cab reduced noise by more
than 20 dB(A). Sound levels were reduced more than 10 dB(A) even with the back window removed.
This shows that if completely enclosing an operators cab is not feasible, a properly designed 3/4-cab
enclosure can provide a substantial noise reduction. The resulting noise reduction will depend on the
location of noise sources on the machine relative to the open area of the 3/4-cab. If there are no significant
noise sources near the open area, the partial cab can still provide a substantial noise reduction. However,
if a noise source has line of sight with the operator due to the exclusion of a side, the partial cab will not
be effective.
Page 63 of 89
3.19 Adapting Active Noise Control Headsets for the Mining Industry
Noise induced hearing loss and its consequences with regard to Occupational Health and Safety remain a
major problem in the Coal Industry, especially underground. Meanwhile, National Standards for exposure
to noise in the occupational environment are being lowered from an 8-hour equivalent continuous Aweighted sound pressure level of 90 dBA to 85 dBA. The most desirable solution is of course to treat the
noise problem at source. Where noise control strategies are not feasible, the use of hearing protection
devices remains the most widely used strategy for limiting the exposure to noise in the work place.
In the underground coal mining industry however, it is widely recognized that the use of certain forms of
hearing protection is far from satisfactory. Some of the reasons given by miners for their reluctance to wear
hearing protection are that hearing protection devices such as ear muffs are uncomfortable, they interfere
with speech communication, and they impair the miners ability to hear the audible signals of potential roof
fall, the roof talk.
Active Noise Control as applied to hearing protection is a technique which uses an electronically generated
sound field to cancel unwanted noise, based on the principle that superposition of a signal on an identical
signal which is 180 out-of-phase results in mutual cancellation of the two signals.
This project aims to demonstrate the applicability of and to establish design specifications for ANC (Active
Noise Control) Headsets for use in the coal mining industry, especially underground.
Noise measurements on production equipment, development equipment, and personnel transport vehicles
were carried out at several underground coal mines. These measurements were supplemented with data
from previous underground noise surveys and analysed to identify equipment with excessively high noise
levels and to determine the sound pressure levels and frequency characteristics of the offending noise. The
spectral analysis of the recorded data showed considerable variation in the noise levels experienced by
miners due to the wide range of equipment used. Overall however, the noise is broadband having most
energy in the 400 to 2000 Hz band.
A market survey of existing ANC Headsets was carried out and six units were acquired for evaluation. The
evaluation of the headsets involved a series of noise attenuation performance tests carried out on an artificial
head at National Acoustics Laboratories (NAL), a series of environmental tests carried out at Vipac's
Victorian Technology Centre in Melbourne and a series of subjective evaluation tests carried out at several
mines via user interviews.
The NAL tests showed some devices to benefit from a significantly improved noise attenuation
performance at low frequencies thanks to the ANC system. Using the measured noise from a continuous
miner and the measured noise attenuation performance of one of the ANC headsets under evaluation as an
example, it was demonstrated that with Active Noise Control, the overall Leq noise level was reduced from
90 dBA (with passive hearing protection only) to 77 dBA.
The subjective tests, of the headsets involved playing back tape recorded underground coal mining
machinery noise to mine personnel through an amplifier speaker system and inviting the participants to
listen to the noise with and without the headset operating. Although only a limited number of people took
part in the trials, the user impression of the ANC headsets collected via a questionnaire at three different
mines revealed a generally positive response of the miners to the idea of using ANC headsets for hearing
protection. In particular, the improvement in speech intelligibility with the Active Noise Control system
was the highlight of the ANC devices. However, the general operator acceptability for these devices in their
current form was very low, especially with regards to power supply and ruggedness.
Page 64 of 89
The Vipac Laboratory environmental tests revealed that, in their current form, the ANC headsets tested are
also unsuitable for use in underground coal mines and would need to be re-engineered if they are to be used
successfully underground.
The final part of the project has been to establish a set of specifications for the manufacturers to use in
developing ANC headsets for use underground.
Page 65 of 89
Introduction
1. Minerals can only be worked where they are found. As a result, mineral working and associated waste
disposal may need to be consented adjacent to residential areas, in areas of landscape importance or other
sensitive locations. Extraction and restoration processes are of a temporary nature but activities on a site
can last for many years and may have the potential for disturbing an area for a decade or more. For these
reasons it is particularly important that the authority has careful regard to noise in determining planning
decisions on minerals or waste.
2. However, because workings vary greatly, it may be necessary to apply different standards in some
circumstances.
3. Mineral workings require restoration. This is usually done by backfilling with waste materials and
therefore mineral working and waste disposal often represent two parts of the same proposed noise
generation process. Landfill operations are in many respects similar to mineral extraction and the two
operations can often be considered together.
4.2
1. The fixed plant used for processing the mineral or manufacturing products will, on many sites, be in
place for many years. Its location, type and arrangement should be considered with care to ensure the
minimum environmental noise impact. For instance noise sources should be kept low and can often be
screened by suitably located stock piles.
2. For noise lacking any particular character, such as squeaks, bangs or unpleasant acoustic tonal
components that would attract attention, Table 2 shows the limits that would normally be appropriate at
any noise sensitive area or development. If there is a distinct characteristic to the noise, the limits would
be reduced by 5 dB(A).
3. It is not intended that plant will be used other than during the normal working day. If it is essential to use
the plant at other times specific written limits will be set by the planning authority.
4.3
Mobile Operations
1. Every effort shall be made to operate the site so as to minimize noise at all times perhaps by working
below a face and towards houses. The levels in the table below are only appropriate where noise cannot
be reduced further, they are not to be regarded as a working norm.
2. The Guideline figures in Table 3 allow, for short periods, quite high noise levels that will be disturbing
to some people. By adopting this approach it is intended to minimize the mineral sterilized beneath wide
margins, whilst sites should generally comply with the normal limits higher noise levels may be permitted
for a short period if every effort has been made to minimize noise on the site overall.
Page 66 of 89
3. Where noise levels might exceed the lower criterion at either end of the working day operations will have
to be arranged to avoid this, perhaps by working at other locations at these times. This will require detailed
forward planning by the operators. If such arrangements cannot or have not been made the operational hours
will have to be limited to the later start and earlier finish.
4. Where existing daytime noise levels are below LA90=35 dB(A) it would not normally be reasonable to
require the new noise to be less than LAeq=45 dB(A) although noise levels must be kept as low as possible.
4.4
1. Most permanent installations associated with oil and gas operations are likely to be working
continuously and therefore noise control is of the utmost importance to prevent a deterioration in the local
environment. Other mineral and waste disposal activities may also have permanent continuously running
plant to which this section applies.
2. The normal requirement is that any plant that is in operation at night should not be heard at the nearest
noise sensitive location. Inaudibility is difficult to define but the requirements of this authority would be
satisfied if the following three criteria are met.
3. Because noise levels vary from night to night it might be difficult to agree the "standard" LA90 value.
The standard conditions should be calm settled weather without any noise from activities that may not be
normal for the area. Generally occasional aircraft and the passing car or motorbike and other occasional
noises that may not be typical of the whole area, animals in a nearby field for example, should be
excluded.
4.5
Monitoring
During the night the level of noise at any noise sensitive receiver should be inaudible and therefore cannot
be monitored objectively at that location. A subjective test would be to visit the noise sensitive location to
see if the noise could be heard but this is not a satisfactory method of monitoring. A more objective test is
normally required that can be monitored during normal working hours. A noise level should be calculated
for a point which is closer than the noise sensitive properties and where the plant noise to be monitored is
well above daytime background level. That defined noise level and location can then be used as a noise
control standard.
4.6
This category of site includes the significant raising of the restored level of old mineral / waste disposal
sites above their original ground level or waste disposal in areas not previously used for mineral
extraction. The planning authority might accept a short term (2 weeks) noise level up to 5 dB(A) above
the limits in the previous table in order to achieve more efficient use of some site areas so long as the
development was considered environmentally satisfactory overall.
Sites for the transfer, treatment or processing of waste will normally be located in urban areas. This could
pose problems of noise because of their proximity to noise sensitive premises. Where operations and/or
plant have to run at night (e.g. an incinerator) it will normally be required that such operations will be
inaudible at the nearest noise sensitive area.
4.7
Engineering Controls
Mills and preparation plants do not exhibit the acoustical characteristics of a single, constant diffuse noise
field. There are many noise sources and the additive effects appear to generate one diffuse sound field
having a constant sound level however, distancing the miner from a specific noise source may result in a
Page 67 of 89
lowering of the noise exposure. Distance is a good noise control, but it is hard to administratively regulate
however, barriers may be used as a substitute for distance.
4.7.1 Barriers
Barriers reduce noise exposure by isolating miners from the sound source and can be applied to
practically all noise sources. The barrier can be as simple as a suspended piece of curtain or as complex as
a concrete wall or control room. The primary purpose is to disturb or interrupt the noise path. Many types
of materials are available depending on the noise source and plant layout. The use of clear vinyl curtains
has been proven to provide a cost-effective barrier around equipment, walkways, stairwells, and work
stations. Curtains can be purchased in various thickness, widths, and lengths, and are generally adaptable
to most installations. There should be a sufficient overlap of curtains to ensure their effectiveness.
Solid walls, floors, and total enclosures such as booths, can also be constructed as barriers. A variety of
ordinary building materials may be used. Noise control materials may also be engineered into the
construction.
Page 68 of 89
4.8
Administrative Controls
There are many possible combinations of administrative controls that may be used to reduce employee
noise exposure. The issue is too variable and complex to discuss at length due to employee specialization,
wage agreements, and employee availability, among other considerations. The general techniques to
consider are time management, including maintenance during idle time and worker rotation. In addition,
dividing routine work between different shifts and changing the actual shift length are administrative
controls that can be utilized.
There is no single control that will eliminate mill and preparation plant noise. A combination of controls
will be needed to reach the goal of reducing employee noise exposure. Meaningful reductions can be
achieved with the use of some or all of the engineering controls discussed in this document. While
reductions may not be attained with engineering controls alone, they may make previously impractical
administrative controls feasible. Due to longevity of mills and preparation plants, noise controls are an
important consideration when these plants are designed and built. While controls should be engineered into
new plant construction, where that has not been done, they should be added as a retrofit.
4.9
Centrifugal Dewaterers
A centrifugal dewaterer is a rotating device used to separate suspended colloidal particles such as clay or
coal from slurry. The centrifugal force created by the rotation causes the particles to move from the
center of the dewaterer to the outside edges where they are collected.
Page 69 of 89
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Information from the manufacturers indicates that there is no noise controls incorporated into the new
equipment of this type. Centrifugal dewatering machines without noise controls need to have additional
retrofit noise controls.
4.10 Chutes
Chutes are used to transport material in a confined area. They are commonly utilized in preparation
plants allowing material to fall through them to a lower level for further processing or to be deposited for
stockpiling.
Page 70 of 89
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Page 71 of 89
Page 72 of 89
A. Gardner-Denver, Inc.
B. Ingersoll-Rand
C. Sullair Corporation
Information from the manufacturers indicates that the noise controls incorporated into the new equipment
are in the form of sound absorption material behind door covers and exhaust mufflers. For compressors
without noise controls, additional retrofit noise controls are needed.
Page 73 of 89
B. Re-route the Intake and Exhaust of the Compressor and Various Air-Driven
Tools
A 90-degree elbow can be installed on the intake of a compressor. The elbow will redirect the
noise above the employees ear level. An elbow may be purchased or constructed using common
building supplies.
Re - route Intake
Re - route Exhaust
Page 74 of 89
The exhaust from air-driven tools and components can also be vented to another area of the plant
or outside the facility. This can be accomplished using hydraulic hose and fittings or ordinary
PVC pipe.
4.12 Crushers
Crushers are utilized to reduce the size of material passing through them. Among the various types of
crushers are the cone, impact, gyratory, and roller. Crushers are frequently used in tandem with the
primary crusher located in the pit and secondary ones in a processing plant.
Underground crushers are utilized prior to transporting the ore out of the mine.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Cedarapids, Inc.
Eagle Crusher Company
Hazemag USA, Inc.
Komatsu America Corp.
Page 75 of 89
E.
F.
G.
H.
Page 76 of 89
Page 77 of 89
Page 78 of 89
Figure 42: Barrier Curtain for Crusher Mainframe Feed Core Liner
If the crusher power is supplied by an internal combustion engine, an appropriately matched and maintained
exhaust system is very effective in reducing the overall sound levels. The termination point of the muffler
should be pointed away from the crusher operator.
Page 79 of 89
4.13 Hoppers
Hoppers are vessels into which materials are fed for future discharge at a controlled rate. Typically, they
are constructed in an inverted pyramid or cone shape. They are most commonly found in the crushed stone
and surface coal industries.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
The following is a list of manufacturers that have retrofit noise controls available for hoppers.
Dealers should be contacted for specific needs and details.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
For smaller hoppers and transfer areas, the retrofit noise controls for chutes may be applicable.
Acoustical operator enclosures with cameras may also be a solution. If a retrofit kit is
unavailable, acoustical materials may be purchased in bulk using Appendix B as a reference.
Page 81 of 89
4.14 Mills
Regardless of the type of mill (rod, ball, roller, hammer, etc.), their function is to reduce the size of the
material that passes through them. This function is accomplished by impacting the material with metal,
thereby creating a noise source in a shell.
4.15 Motors
Motors are used throughout preparation plants to drive machinery, pumps, fans, shaker screens, crushers,
conveyor belts, etc.
4.16 Pumps
Pumps are utilized to either push or pull liquids through a tube or pipe. They can be used to power automatic
lubricating systems, provide water over shaker screens, reduce the level of water in sumps, and move
slurries through centrifugal dewaterers.
Page 84 of 89
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Information from the manufacturers indicates that noise controls have not been incorporated into
equipment of this type since the equipment is designed to move either a fluid or slurry. Many of the
companies are precisely balancing the internal moving parts to reduce vibration. The pumps are powered
by electric motors, hydraulic fluid, or compressed air. These power sources and/or pumps can sometimes
be located inside buildings or enclosures to help reduce the overall noise. This is dependent upon the size
and location of the equipment.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
C.U.E., Inc.
Derrick Corporation
Firestone Industrial Products Company
Goodman-Hewitt
Metso Minerals Industries, Inc.
Polydeck Screen Corporation
Tema Systems, Inc.
Weir Minerals Linatex
Information from the manufacturers indicates that there is some noise controls incorporated into new
equipment of this type. For classifying screens without noise controls, additional retrofit noise controls
are needed.
Screening equipment manufacturers will attempt to incorporate any noise controls into the new
equipment that the purchaser specifies at the time of the order.
Page 87 of 89
5 References
1. Scott D. F., Gray Son R. L., Edwa Rd A. Disease and Illness in U.S. Mining, 1983-2001. J. of Occup.
& Env. Medicine 46 (12), 1272, Dec. 2004.
2. U.S. Dept. Of La Bor, Noise Control A Guide for Workers and Employers, Occup. Safety & Health
Administration, p119.
3. Sensogut, C., Cina R, I. An Empirical Model for the Noise Propagation in Open Cast Mines A Case
Study, Applied Acoustics, 68, 1026, 2007.
4. CHEN, J.D., TSAI, J.Y. Hearing Loss among Workers at an Oil Refinery in Taiwan. Archives of
Environmental Health, ISSN 003-996, 58, (1), 55, 2003.
5. Poltev M. K. Occupational Health and Safety in Mining Industries. Mir Publishers, Moscow, 5, 117,
1985.
6. Al Joe W. W., Bobick T. G., Redmond, G. W., Bartholomae R.C. The Bureau of Mines Noise Control
Research Program, a 10-Year Review, Bureau of Mines Information Circular, IC9004, 1985.
7. International Labour Organization, Safety & health in small-scale surface mines a handbook, pp. 13,
ISBN 92-2-112475-4, 2001.
8. Shier ET. Al . Holes human anatomy and physiology, 7th edition, TM Higher Education Group, Inc.,
1996.
9. Sensogut C. Industrial Noise in Mines and Labour Health. [In Turkish] Symp. on Labour Health in
Mining Industry, Karaelmas University, Zonguldak, pp. 73-77, 1998.
10. Unver B. A study on the effects of noise experienced during mining cctivities on the health of labour.
Conference on Safety in Mines and Environmental Protection, ISGUM, Ankara [In Turkish], pp. 8398, 1995.
11. Noise Control Regulations of Turkey, Official Gazette, 25325, 2003.
12. BANA CH J. D. Mine Safety & health administration announces new health standard. CAOHC
update, pp. 2-3, Spring 2000.
13. G Rella G., Patrucco, M. Environmental noise from a new surface mining project. Proceedings
SWEMP96, Edited by R. Ciccu, Cagliari, pp. 1089-1096, 1996.
14. TS 2606. Acoustic, the Evaluation of Noise from the Point of Social Life, Turkish Standard, March
Issue, pp. 1-6, 1977.
15. TS 2711. General Principles for Sound Level Meters, Turkish Standard, April Issue, pp. 1-10, 1977.
16. TS 2604. Sensitive Sonometers, Turkish Standard, March Issue, pp. 7-10, 1977.
17. Cina R, I. Noise Monitoring, Modelling and Mapping in Mining, PhD Thesis, Graduate School of
Pure and Applied Sciences, Selcuk University, Konya, pp. 141, 2005.
18. Fausti, S., Wilming Ton, D., Helt, W., Konradmartin, D. Hearing Health and Care: The Need for
Improvised Hearing Loss Prevention and Hearing Conservation Practices. Journal of Rehabilitation
Research & Development, 42(4), 45, 2005.
Page 88 of 89
19. Bridges M et al, 1998, Noise reduction in coal handling and preparation plants, Proceedings of the
XIII International Coal Preparation Congress, Partridge AC and Partridge IR (Eds), Paper D4.
20. Commission of Enquiry, Environment & Planning, 1994, Establishment and Operation Bengalla Open
Cut Coal Mine Muswellbrook.
21. Envirosciences Pty Limited, 1993, Environmental Impact Statement for Bengalla Coal Mine.
Page 89 of 89