*:^vw^\/^

A'fcS.

<Uo*

j,,^:.:^^.:^^^^^

*v

4>

o,

3.*-

O
"OV*

v **i^*

a;

4>

--M

<>

'

^
V

^u

'

4*

*V
0<

*V

'

V **

'"o* A

'

n3,

'

A ^

0*

"<S>

H<^
Aw
1

^.

V
^.

4 o^
s

*i**

->,

% ^

'

^v

-^

"
"

u A _a

^^. ^.

**
'

'
'

^V
*V

4-

4>

^\
*-u

?
o-H

AV *^

*o

a
'^0^

A
*bV"

<>

*'^

v
i0

_!-.

^
^**
*

0>

^.

*>

'

'

v*

4?

^,

aS

Bureau of Mines Information Circular/1987

Computer Modeling

of the Effect of Mine-Fire-Induced Ventilation

Disturbances on Stench Fire

Warning System Performance

By Linneas Laage, William Pomroy, and Thomas Weber

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Information Circular 9154

Computer Modeling

of the Effect of Mine-Fire-Induced Ventilation

Disturbances on Stench Fire

Warning System Performance

By Linneas Laage, William Pomroy, and Thomas Weber

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Donald Paul Hodel, Secretary

BUREAU OF MINES
David S. Brown, Acting Director

no.

^s^

Library of Congress Cataloging

in

Publication Data:

Laage, Linneas W. Computer modeling of the effect of mine-fire-induced ventilation disturbance on stench fire warning system performance.
(Information circular; 9154)
Bibliography:
p. 12.

Supt. of Docs, no.:

28.27: 9154.

1. Mine fires Prevention and control Mathematical models. 2. Mine fires Prevention and control Data processing. 3. Stench fire-warning system in mines Mathematical models. 4. Stench fire-warning system in mines Data processing. 5. Mine ventilation Mathematical models. 6. Mine ventilation Data processing. I. Pomroy, William H. II. Weber, Thomas. III. Title. rV. Series: Information circular (United States. Bureau of Mines); 9154.

TN295.U4

[TN315]

622

[622'.8]

87-600182

CONTENTS
Pa g e

Abstract Introduction Operation of the stench warning computer model Case study analysis method Results of stench fire simulations Fire in branch 30 Fire in branch 48 Fire in branch 37 Fire in branch 52 Fire in branch 53 Summary Conclusions References

2
2 3 5

5 5 6 6 6

12 12

12

ILLUSTRATION
1.

Schematic of hypothetical mine ventilation network

TABLES
1.

Physical characteristics of simulated fires

Stench warning times under baseline conditions and under the influence of a fire in
2.

3.

4.
5.

6.

Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch

30 48
37

8
9

52 53

10
11

UNIT OF MEASURE ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT

Btu/ft 3

British thermal unit per cubic foot British thermal unit per pound

hour inch

in

Btu/lb

lb/ft 3

pound per cubic foot

minute

Btu/min

British thermal unit per minute

)

min
pet

Btu/(min* ft 2

British thermal unit per minute per square foot

cubic foot per minute

percent
part per billion

ppb
ft 3 /min

yr

year

COMPUTER MODELING OF THE EFFECT OF MINE-FIRE-INDUCED VENTILATION DISTURBANCES ON STENCH FIRE WARNING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
By Linneas Laage, William Pomroy, 2 and Thomas Weber3
1

ABSTRACT
Underground mine fires can significantly influence mine ventilation As a airstreams, in some cases throttling or even reversing airflows. result, the performance of a metal and nonmetal mine stench fire warning system, which depends on the ventilation to carry the vital warning sigconditions is different from performance under nonfire nal, under fire The safety of underground miners can be jeopardized if the conditions. This Bureau of Mines report describes rewarning signal is delayed. A search to investigate fire and stench warning system interactions. computer model is presented that permits quantitative analysis of stench warning signal delays as a function of fire location and intensity. The results of a case study involving computer simulations of stench distribution in a hypothetical mine network subject to various fire exposures This case study illustrates a technique for idenare also discussed. tifying the areas within a mine that are subject to unacceptable warning signal delays, thereby enabling preemptive action by mine personnel, such as redeployment of stench injectors.
_

Mining engineer. ^Supervisory mining engineer. ^Engineering aid, computer science. Twin Cities Research Center, Bureau of Mines, Minneapolis, MN.

INTRODUCTION
Fires are an ever-present threat to the Since the safety of underground miners. smoke and toxic gas produced by a mine fire can be spread rapidly by the mine's ventilation system, mine evacuation must be accomplished as quickly as possible in In metal and nonmetal the event of fire. the most common means mines, of passing the fire warning signal to each miner is the stench system. The typical stench system utilizes ethyl raercaptan, a highly odoriferous organic compound, injected on the surface into the compressed and/or ventilation airstreams. Upon smelling the stench, workers evacuate the mine according to an emergency preplan. Although the stench system has been used successfully for over 60 yr, it has several serious shortcomings, owing to certain chemical properties of ethyl raercaptan and to certain performance characteristics and limitations of present injection systems. Recent Bureau research succeeded in upgrading the overall safety and effectiveness of the stench system through the use of a superior stench odorant and the development of improved stench injection equipment ^1_). 4 This research has also investigated a specialized computer simulation model capable of calculating the precise concentration of stench in any mine ventilation network branch at any time after stench release An (2^) adaptation of the computer model now enables the analysis of stench system and ventilation system interactions under the influence of a mine fire. Mine fires, depending on their location and intensity, can significantly change ventilation flows. The heat energy from
the fire can throttle or even reverse the direction of airflows in large areas of a mine. Under such conditions, the stench odor may not be carried by the ventilation streams to all parts of a mine in time to permit a safe mine evacuation, even though satisfactory stench distribution is achieved during routine fire In these cases, fire drills only drills. serve to reinforce the false security provided by such a system. Ironically, the circumstances resulting in degraded warning system performance exist only A during an actual fire emergency. problem arises in that the interactions between a fire and a stench warning system are highly complex so complex that conventional analytic techniques for designing stench systems do not address fire effects. Use of the stench fire warning system computer model will enable mine safety analyze officials quantitatively to

stench system performance under simulated The program calculates fire conditions. stench odor transport time to each mine network branch as a function of fire intensity location. Preemptive and stench such as relocation of action, if fireindicated the injectors, is induced ventilation changes result in excessive stench transport times to key work areas. This Bureau of Mines report briefly describes the operation of the program and illustrates its use through a case study analysis of stench distribution in a hypothetical 53-branch mine ventilation network under both baseline (nonfire) and mine fire conditions.

OPERATION OF THE STENCH WARNING COMPUTER MODEL

The stench warning model is evaluated with a ventilation network analysis computer program developed under contract for the Bureau by Michigan Technological University.

^Underlined numbers in parentheses refer to items in the list of references at the end of this report.

Ventilation calculations are made within the program, which represents the mine network as a collection of closed paths The mine network and operator meshes. ing conditions are described in an input At data file. each junction (airway intersection within the mine network), conservation of mass is applied to relate The conservation of the airflow rates.

energy is applied to the airflow around each mesh, with frictional wall losses being used to establish pressure losses of the energy airways. As part along temperature and calculation, balance elevation variations within the mine are used to calculate natural ventilation pressures, and fan pressures are determined from the fan characteristic data. The conservation of mass and energy solved iteratively until equations are the airflow rates are balanced throughout the mine network. The localized heat production rate of the fire is entered as part of the input The heat addition data to the program. alters the airflow, and its effect is evaluated by calculating the new temperaThe ture distribution and airflow rates. real-time capability of the program is utilized to project the time-dependent

spread of stench from a warning system This evaluthroughout the mine complex. ation proceeds by associating control volumes with specific stench concentrations. Each control volume is transAt junctions ported with the airflow. where control volumes meet, perfect mixing is assumed and a new control volume new stench concentration) is formed. (a The stench injector locations and fire locations are specified in the network, the injection as are the duration of period and the duration and intensity of Changes in the ventilation the fires. system (addition of network branches, etc. ) and events related to the occurrence of a fire (shutdown of underground fans, etc.) can easily be accommodated by Utilizarevising the input data file. tion and operation of the computer model have been described previously (3-7).

CASE STUDY ANALYSIS METHOD

The effect of mine fires on the distribution of stench odor in an underground mine network was analyzed through comThe subject of the puter simulation. simulations was a hypothetical 53-branch A schematic mine ventilation network. representation of the network, indicating fan locations, stench injector locations, and airway numbers, shown is in figure 1. The case study involved the analysis of five fires. To simplify the analysis, the fires were assumed to be diesel fuel pool fires. The fires achieved steadystate burning almost immediately, with essentially no incipient stage heating and no change in intensity over time. The diesel fuel pools en be visualized as circular, of sufficient surface area to produce a fire of the maximum intensity for the available oxygen, and of sufficient depth to burn for 1 h. The maximum fire size was determined by the simplified combustion relationship (8):
C +
2

C0 2 + 470 Btu/ft 3

with all available converted com2 pletely to C0 2 until a residual level of 9 pet The analysis is reached. 2 is

based on a burning rate of 0.12 in of fuel depth per minute, a fuel density of 61 lb/ft 3 and a heat release of 19,390 Btu/lb, yielding a heat release rate of 11,830 Btu/(min*f 2 ) of fuel surface area The physical characteristics of the (90. simulated fires are shown in table 1. As the smoke and gases produced by the fires were not of principal interest, and their presence in the network would only confound the analysis of stench distribution, the fires were modeled as sources heat with no generation of smoke or of Conversely, the injection of gases. stench gas was modeled as a source of fume contaminant without heat release. Stench injection was started 10 min after each fire was initiated and conThe detinued for 10 min thereafter. tection threshold of the stench odor was assumed to be 10 ppb (ability to detect the odor varies with age, sex, state of health, and other factors, and ranges from under 2 ppb to 120 ppb in extreme Stench injection rate was concases). 0.0706 in all simulations at stant Stench injector locations were ft 3 /min. selected based on standard industry ventilation practice: atop downcast shafts.
,

KEY
Airway

Airway number
Airflow direction

Junction Surface junction

Vertical shaft or

winze

Stench injector

FIGURE

1.

Schematic ot hypothetical mine ventilation network.

TABLE

1.

- Physical characteristics of simulated fires

Simulation
1

Fire location airway

30 48
37 52 53

Pool diam,
ft

3 5
7

and 2. . and 4. . and 6. . and 8. . and 10..

12.40 22.19 17.96 26.08 4.32

Fire intensity, Btu/min 1,375,500 4,401,400 2,882,600 6,081,300 166,700

Airflow, f t 3 /min 26,230 83,933 54,969 115,966

3,

179

RESULTS OF STENCH FIRE SIMULATIONS

As noted above, the case study involved For each an analysis of five fires. two simulations were performed fire, one with both surface and underground mine fans operating and one with the underground fan shut down (as sometimes Warnoccurs during actual mine fires). ing times to each network branch were then calculated for each fan and fire The warning condition and tabulated. time is the shortest time required for the stench to travel from any injector to The maximum the end of a given branch. acceptable warning time was arbitrarily A baseline stench chosen as 60 min. distribution simulation was performed to confirm that nonfire warning times met the acceptance criteria and to provide a basis for comparing warning times calculated under fire conditions. The maximum baseline warning time was 55.64 min, with an average time of 28.05 min and a minimum of 13.44 min. Airway reversals and warning times that exceeded the acceptable maximum are also indicated in tables 2-6, which are grouped at the end of the text discussion.

fire, the acceptable maximum warning time was not exceeded in any branch under Airflow reversals either fan condition. occurred in branches 20 and 53 with the underground fan shut down.

FIRE IN BRANCH 48

FIRE IN BRANCH 30

Stench warning times under baseline conditions and under the influence of a fire in branch 30 are shown in table 2. The ^,375,000-Btu/min fire in branch 30, a horizontal drift, had the effect of reducing maximum and average warning times slightly for both fan conditions. With the underground fan shut down, the maximum warning time was 52.17 min, the average was 26.42 min, and the minimum was 13.33 min. The average reduction in warning time was 1.63 min, or about 5.8 pet. With both fans operating, the maximum warning time was 53.58 min, the average was 27.89 min, and the minimum was 13.45 min. The average reduction in warning time was 0.16 min, or about 0.5 pet. Although warning time delays ranging to 18.27 min were produced by the

Stench warning times under baseline conditions and under the influence of a fire in branch 48 are shown in table 3. The 4,401,400-Btu/min fire in branch 48, a horizontal drift intersecting a vertical shaft with airflow toward the upcast shaft, had the effect of increasing the maximum and average warning times With slightly for both fan conditions. the maxithe underground fan shut down, the mum warning time was 57.08 min, average was 28.30 min, and the minimum The average warning time was 13.43 min. delay was 0.24 min, or about 0.87 pet. With both fans operating, the maximum warning time was 66.88 min, the average was 30.80 min, and the minimum was 13.57 The average warning time delay was min. 2.75 min, or about 9.80 pet. Warning time delays ranged to 21.25 min with the underground fan shut down and 24.6 min With the with both fans operating. underground fan shut down, the maximum acceptable warning time was not exceeded; however, with both fans operating, the maximum acceptable warning time was exThe ceeded in two branches 20 and 32. warning times in those branches were 65.96 and 66.88 min respectively, or about 20.2 and 59.5 pet above the baseline warning times. In both cases, the warning signal reached the beginning of the branch within the prescribed 60 min (36.94 and 48.24 min respectively); howthe air velocity was too slow to ever, carry the signal to the end of the branch In one case, branch 20, an air in time. reversal occurred. Another air reversal was noted in branch 53, which is a continuation of branch 20.

FIRE IN BRANCH 37

Stench warning times under baseline conditions and under the influence of a fire in branch 37 are shown in table 4. The 2,882,600-Btu/min fire in branch 37, of drift, had the effect a horizontal average warning reducing maximum and times slightly for both fan conditions. With the underground fan shut down, the maximum warning time was 51.23 min, the average was 26.25 min, and the minimum 13.34 min. The average reduction in was warning time was 1.80 min, or about 6.4 With both fans operating, the maxipet. mum warning time was 55.03 min, the average was 27.66 min, and the minimum 13.44 min. The average reduction in was warning time was 0.30 min, or about 1.1 Although warning time delays rangpet. ing to 17.33 min were produced by the fire, the acceptable maximum warning time was not exceeded in any branch under either fan condition. Air reversals occurred in branches 20 and 53 with the underground fan shut down.

however, delays ranging to over 80 min, were produced. or nearly 400 pet, Numerous reversals occurred as well, as shown in table 5, including branch 3, which is a downcast ventilation shaft and therefore the site of a stench injector. With the reversal of branch 3, stench from that injector is exhausted to the With the undersurface and is lost. the acceptable ground fan shut down, maximum warning time was exceeded in three branches. With both fans operating, the maximum was exceeded in five branches.
FIRE IN BRANCH 53

FIRE IN BRANCH 52
Stench warning times under baseline conditions and under the influence of a fire in branch 52 are shown in table 5. The 6,081,300-Btu/min fire in branch 52, vertical shaft, had the effect of rea ducing the average warning time slightly when the underground fan was shut down and increasing the average warning time slightly when both fans were operating, but significantly increasing the maximum warning time under both fan conditions. With the underground fan shut down, the maximum warning time was 110.10 min, the average was 27.01 min, and the minimum was 11.29 min. The average reduction in warning time was 1.04 min, or about 3.71 pet; however, warning time delays ranged to 87.41 min, or nearly 400 pet of the baseline. With both fans operating, the maximum warning time was 124.59 min, the average was 28.26 min, and the minimum was 11.28 min. The average warning time delay was 0.21 min, or about 0.7 pet;

Stench warning times under baseline conditions and under the influence of a fire in branch 53 are shown in table 6. The relatively small 166, 700-Btu/min fire in branch 53, a vertical winze, had the effect of reducing the average warning times slightly under both fan conditions, but increasing the maximum warning times when the underground fan was shut down. With the underground fan shut down, the maximum warning time was 66.15 min a 95The pct increase over the baseline. average warning time was 26.79 min, and The average the maximum was 13.28 min. warning time reduction was 1.26 min, or about 4.49 pet. With both fans operating, the maximum warning time was 51.38 and the min, the average was 26.23 min, 13.31 The average minimum was min. 1.82 min, reduction in warning time was With the underground or about 6.49 pet. fan shut down, warning time reductions of delays of over 17 min occurred; however, 32.25 With were produced. up to min also both fans operating, warning time re15.41 min occurred ductions ranging to while delays were limited to 5.5 min or Only with the underground fan shut less. down was the acceptable maximum warning It occurred time exceeded. in only one Under both fan branch by only 6.15 min. conditions, air reversals occurred in (The fire was in 53, branches 20 and 53. and 20 is a continuation of that branch.)

TABLE 2. - Stench warning times under baseline conditions and under the influence of a fire in branch 30

Fan in branch
Airway

Baseline warning time, min

13.44 14.97 14.45 29.84 20.84 14.64 18.32 33.90 20.77 22.97 29.37 20.01 31.42 21.66 23.61 34.76 27.91 29.45 31.37 41.36 32.93 30.31 31.79 30.70 32.60 33.17 50.32 35.00 32.39 48.33 45.06 55.64

51 only

Fans in branches 6 and 51

Warning
time, min

4
5

6
7

8 9

10
11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20
21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 51 52 53

40.75 40.75
16.67 22.74 21.33 18.40 25.12 27.36 31.93 47.01 18.07 19.46 19.85 14.54 14.81 37.03 16.20 16.23 14.51 42.47

13.33 14.48 15.02 26.98 25.81 15.34 22.41 52.17 27.13 31.35 36.26 18.27 27.72 19.46 20.85 28.81 23.92 25.02 26.39 '29.35 29.64 25.97 28.47 26.96 29.40 30.01 34.43 31.05 28.48 42.17 40.01 49.04 36.32 36.32 17.19 23.12 21.73 18.24 24.85 27.63 32.11 46.75 17.91 19.27 19.66 14.41 14.69 33.98 16.10 16.12 15.08 '26.56

Difference from baseline, min -0.11 -.49

.57

Warning
time, min

Difference from baseline, min

-0.01 .00 .02 -.89 .03 .02 .03 .10 .04 .05 .04 -.04 -.91 .02 .08 .42
.21 .26 .32

-2.86 4.97
.70

4.09 18.27 6.36 8.38 6.89 -1.74 -3.70 -2.20 -2.76 -5.95 -3.99 -4.43 -4.98 -12.01 -3.29 -4.34 -3.32 -3.74 -3.20 -3.16 -15.89 -3.95 -3.91 -6.16 -5.05 -6.60 -4.43 -4.43
.52 .38 .40

13.45 14.97 14.47 28.95 20.87 14.66 18.35 34.00 20.81 23.02 29.41 19.97 30.51 21.68 23.69 35.18 28.12 29.71 31.69 43.65 33.32 30.59 32.14 31.30 33.27 33.85 44.59 33.88 31.37

2.29
.39 .28 .35 .60 .67 .68

-.16 -.27
.27 .18

-.26 -.16 -.19 -.19 -.13 -.12 -3.05 -.10 -.11

.57

45.89 43.49 53.58 38.37 39.37 16.69 22.77 21.35 18.42 25.14 27.40 31.98 47.05 18.09 19.48
19.87 14.55 14.82 37.67 16.21 16.24 14.52 44.91

-5.73 -1.12 -1.02 -2.44 -1.57 -2.06 -1.38 -1.38

.02 .03 .02 .02 .02 .04 .05 .04 .02 .02 .02 .01 .01 .64 .01 .01 .01 2.44

-15.91

Air revei sal occurred.

TABLE 3. - Stench warning times under baseline conditions and under the influence of a fire in branch 48

Airway

Baseline warning time, min

13.44 14.97 14.45 29.84 20.84 14.64 18.32 33.90 20.77 22.97 29.37 20.01 31.42 21.66 23.61 34.76 27.91 29.45 31.37 41.36 32.93 30.31 31.79 30.70 32.60 33.17 50.32 35.00 32.39 48.33 45.06 55.64 40.75 40.75 16.67 22.74 21.33 18.40 25.12 27.36 31.93 47.01 18.07 19.46 19.85 14.54 14.81 37.03 16.20 16.23 14.51 42.47

Fan in branch 51 only Warning Difference time, min from baseline, min -0.01 13.43 -.21 14.76
15.04 30.46 24.75 15.39 23.03 55.15 28.14 32.71 36.91 19.14 31.23 20.47 22.01 30.85 25.42 26.64 28.16 '30.46 39.31 27.72 33.00 29.06 32.81 33.62 37.89 35.73 32.24 49.53 46.15 57.08 41.71 41.71 17.13 22.81 21.48 18.14 24.64 27.14 31.40 46.32 17.83 19.12 19.49 14.47 14.77 38.95 16.23 16.25 15.10 '28.29
.59 .62 3.91 .75 4.71 21.25 7.37 9.74 7.54 -.87 -.19

3 4
5

6
7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 51 52 53

-1.19 -1.60 -3.91 -2.49 -2.81 -3.21 -10.90 6.38 -2.59

1.21

-1.64
.21 .45

-12.43
.73 -.15 1.20 1.09 1.45 .96 .96 .46 .07 .15 -.26

-.48 -.22 -.53 -.69 -.24 -.34 -.36 -.07 -.04 1.92 .03 .02 .59 -14.18

Fans in branches 6 and 51 Warning Difference time, min from baseline, min 13.57 0.13 15.45 .48 -.01 14.44 34.68 4.84 -.29 20.55 -.01 14.63 18.41 .09 34.42 .52 20.93 .16 .22 23.19 -.18 29.19 21.63 1.62 36.50 5.08 1.95 23.61 25.93 2.32 4.47 39.23 31.06 3.15 3.45 32.90 3.82 35.19 '' 2 65.96 24.60 4.59 37.52 3.71 34.02 36.17 4.38 35.76 5.06 38.42 5.82 39.18 6.01 2.61 52.93 41.18 6.18 37.72 5.33 9.34 57.67 8.54 53.60 2 11.24 66. 88 48.24 7.49 48.24 7.49 -.10 16.57 -.37 22.37 -.30 21.03 -.08 18.32 -.20 24.92 -.57 26.79 -.79 31.14 -.49 46.52 -.07 18.00 -.14 19.32 -.15 19.70 14.62 .08 .11 14.92 7.28 44.31 16.36 .16 16.39 .16 -.02 14.49 '36.94 -5.53

Air reversal occurred.

Exceeded acceptable maximum.

TABLE 4. - Stench warning times under baseline conditions and under the influence of a fire in branch 37

Fan
Airway

in

branch

Baseline warning
time,
rain

51 only

Warning
time,

min

3 4
5

6
7

8
9

10
11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

13.44 14.97 14.45 29.84 20.84 14.64 18.32 33.90 20.77 22.97 29.37 20.01 31.42 21.66 23.61 34.76 27.91 29.45 31.37 41.36 32.93 30.31 31.79 30.70 32.60 33.17 50.32 35.00 32.39 48.33 45.06 55.64

13.34 14.48 15.17 27.25 28.35 15.49 22.34 51.23 26.92 31.02 36.01 18.25
28. 13

Difference from baseline, min -0.10 -.49

.72 -2.59 7.51 .85 4.02 17.33 6.15 8.05 6.64 -1.76 -3.29 -2.24 -2.84 -6.22 -4.14 -4.61 -5.19 -12.18 -3.77 -4.54 -3.69 -4.10 -3.68 -3.66 -15.02 -3.40 -3.42 -5.00 -4.57 -5.98 -4.01 -4.01 .86 .05 1.87 -.32 .07 -.57 -.53 -11.52 -.36 -.18 -.17
.14 -.13 -3.60 -.09 -.09 .72 -16.12

40.75 40.75
16.67 22.74 21.33 18.40 25.12 27.36 31.93 47.01 18.07 19.46 19.85 14.54 14.81 37.03 16.20 16.23 14.51 42.47 rever sal occurred.

40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
51 52

53
'Air

19.42 20.77 28.54 23.77 24.84 26.18 '29.18 29.16 25.77 28.10 26.60 28.92 29.51 35.30 31.60 28.97 43.33 40.49 49.66 36.74 36.74 17.53 22.79 23.20 18.08 25.19 26.79 31.40 35.49 17.71 19.28 19.68 14.40 14.68 33.43 16.11 16.14 15.23 '26.35

Fans in branches 6 and 51 Warning Difference time, min from baseline, min 13.44 0.00 -.03 14.94 14.61 .16 -.27 29.57 21.56 .72 14.80 .16 18.45 .13 33.93 .03 20.89 .12 23.07 .10 .02 29.39 -.12 19.89 -.30 31.12 -.15 21.51 -.19 23.42 -.40 34.36 -.27 27.64 -.30 29.15 -.33 31.04 42.97 1.61 -.35 32.58 -.30 30.01 -.31 31.48 -.32 30.38 -.34 32.26 -.35 32.82 -.78 49.54 -.35 34.65 -.32 32.07 -.51 47.82 -.47 44.59 -.61 55.03 -.41 40.34 -.41 40.34 .35 17.02 -.34 22.40 22.86 1.53 -.16 18.24 25.47 .35 -.86 26.50 -.71 31.22 -11.64 35.37 -.21 17.86 19.48 .02 .04 19.89 -.02 14.52 -.01 14.80 -.40 36.63 16.21 .01 16.23 .00 14.66 .15 44.17 1.70

10

TABLE 5. - Stench warning times under baseline conditions and under the influence of a fire in branch 52

Airway

Baseline warning time, min

13.44 14.97 14.45 29.84 20.84 14.64 18.32 33.90 20.77 22.97 29.37 20.01 31.42 21.66 23.61 34.76 27.91 29.45 31.37 41.36 32.93 30.31 31.79 30.70 32.60 33.17 50.32 35.00 32.39 48.33 45.06 55.64 40.75 40.75 16.67 22.74 21.33 18.40
25. 12

2
3

4
5

Fan in branch 51 only Warning Difference from baseline, time, min min -2.15 11.29 -2.96 12.01 '11.75 -2.70 -10.05 19.79
12.43 '31.71 '31.52 '44.90 '26.35 '22.93 28.79 14.39 21.85 15.09 15.89 20.49 17.66 18.30 19.09 '19.85 '20.83 18.92 '22.99 19.32 25.89 24.99 24.38 24.59 22.37 28.92 27.30 32.48
25. 17

6
7

8
9

10
11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20
21 22

23 24 25 26
27

28 29 30
31 32

-8.41 17.07 13.20 11.00 5.58 -0.04 -0.58 -5.62 -9.57 -6.57 -7.72 -14.27 -10.25 -11.15 -12.28 -21.51 -12.10 -11.39 -8.80 -11.38 -6.71 -8.18 -25.94 -10.41 -10.02 -19.41 -17.76
-23. 16

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
51

'

52 53

Air

27.36 31.93 47.01 18.07 19.46 19.85 14.54 14.81 37.03 16.20 16.23 14.51 42.47 reversal occurred.

''

25.17 '39.60 2 110.10 '29.60 15.88 32.93 2 102.33 2 101.54 '39.14 14.63 20.98 24.30
12. 18

-15.58 -15.58 22.93 87.41 8.27 -2.52

7.81 74.97 69.61 -7.87 -3.44 1.52 4.45 -2.36 -2.22 -8.73 -1.49 -1.49 -2.07 -23.34

12.59 28.30 14.71 14.74 '12.44 '19.13 Exceeded acceptable maximum.

Fans in branches 6 and 51 Warning Difference time, min from baseline, min -2.16 11.28 -3.00 11.97 -2.73 11.72 -10.31 19.53 -8.40 12.44 '27.17 12.53 '27.05 8.73 '35.82 1.92 '23.64 2.87 '21.38 -1.59 31.38 2.01 -5.78 14.23 -10.08 21.34 -6.77 14.89 7.96 15.65 -14.76 20.00 -10.58 17.33 -11.52 17.93 '18.68 -12.69 '19.34 -22.02 -12.99 19.94 '18.54 -11.77 -10.53 21.26 -11.76 18.94 -.48 32.12 -8.82 24.35 -26.64 23.68 -10.91 24.09 -10.54 21.85 -19.91 28.42 -18.21 26.85 -23.75 31.89 -15.98 24.77 -15.98 24.7 7 2 63.93 80. 60 2 69.44 46.70 '37.99 16.66 -2.67 15.73 '30.83 5.71 2 94. 12 66.76 2 112.80 80.87 2 124. 77.58 59 -3.35 14.72 .16 19.62 21.24 1.39 -2.36 12. 18 -2.25 12.56 -9.06 27.97 -1.52 14.68 -1.51 14.72 -2.06 '12.45 -23.75 '18.72
1
1

11

TABLE 6. - Stench warning times under baseline conditions and under the influence of a fire in branch 53 Fan in branch 51 only Warning Difference time, min from baseline, min -0.16 13.28 -.64 14.33 15.18 .73 -3.39 26.45 30.44 9.60 15.68 1.04 25.38 7.06 66. 15 32.25 31.92 11.15 37.77 14.80 33.07 3.70 -2.23 17.78 -4.22 27.20 -3.33 18.33 -3.56 20.05 -7.72 27.04 -5.16 22.75 -5.74 23.71 -6.45 24.92 2 26. 59 -14.77 -.93 32.00 -5.72 24.59 -3.41 28.38 -5.28 25.42 -4.36 28.24 -4.30 28.87 -17.63 32.69 -4.27 30.73 28.01 -4.38 -6.55 41.78 -6.00 39.06 -7.84 47.80 -5.26 35.49 -5.26 35.49 17.35 .68 23.26 .52 21.87 .54 -.20 18.20 -.30 24.82 27.66 .40 32.22 .29 46.91 -.10 17.87 -.20 -.23 19.23 -.24 19.61 14.37 -.17 -.16 14.65 45.98 8.95 -.15 16.05 16.08 -.15 15.24 .73 2 24. -17.48 99 2 Air re vers al occurred.
1

Fans
6

n branches

Airway

Baseline warning time, min

13.44 14.97 14.45 29.84 20.84 14.64 18.32 33.90 20.77 22.97 29.37 20.01 31.42 21.66 23.61 34.76 27.91 29.45 31.37 41.36 32.93 30.31 31.79 30.70 32.60 33.17 50.32 35.00 32.39 48.33 45.06 55.64 40.75 40.75 16.67 22.74 21.33 18.40 25.12 27.36 31.93 47.01 18.07 19.46 19.85 14.54 14.81 37.03 16.20 16.23 14.51 42.47
raaximiam.

Warning
time,

min

and 51 Difference from baseline, min

-0. 13

2 3 4
5

6
7

8
9

10
11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

13.31 14.52 14.71 28.00 22.76 14.94 19.63 2 39.48 22.76 25.57 31.14 18.52 28.93 18.76 21.20 29.46 24.39 25.53 26.95 2 29.93

-.45 .26 -1.84 1.92 .30

1.31

30
31 32

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
51

52 53

29.80 26.50 28.80 27.39 29.75 30.35 36.74 32.54 29.81 44.77 41.80 51.38 37.89 37.89 16.94 23.03 21.61 18.33 25.12 27.67 32.27 47.42 18.00 19.40 19.79 14.42 14.70 34.43 16.08 16.10 14.76 2 27.06

5.58 1.99 2.60 1.77 -1.49 -2.49 -1.90 -2.41 -5.30 -3.52 -3.92 -4.42 -11.43 -3.13 -3.81 -2.99 -3.31 -2.85 -2.82 -13.58 -2.46 -2.58 -3.46 -3.26 -4.26 -2.86 -2.86 .27 .29 .28 -.07 .00
.31 .34 .41

-.07 -.06 -.06 -.12 -.11 -2.60 -.12 -.13 .25 -15.41

'Exceeded acceptable

4388

94

12

SUMMARY

Through computer simulation and case study analysis, the effect of various fires on the performance of a typical system was mine stench fire warning studied. The predominant effect observed was to reduce warning times slightly to most areas; however, in each case studied, significant warning time delays The occurred, often ranging to over 1 h. longest delays occurred as a result of shaft fires; however, warning times

exceeding the target maximum of 1 h were Fire loalso produced by drift fires. was shown to be a critical factor. cation Even though the fire in airway 53 had an intensity of only 4 to 12 pet of the fires in airways 30, 37, and 48, it proand minimum duced comparable maximum Lengthy warning times delay times. delays were frequently, but not always, associated with airflow reversals.

CONCLUSIONS
An effective and reliable fire warning system is an essential element of every In metal mine's fire emergency preplan. and nonmetal mines, the most common means of fire warning is the stench system. However, this study illustrates the inherent tendency of stench systems to perform differently under fire conditions than during routine fire drills. Unless these differences are known, and suitable precautions against a warning failure system
are implemented, disastrous consequences can result. The computer model presented in this report is recommended as an efficient and accurate tool for quantitatively analyzing stench system performance under both fire and nonfire conditions, and evaluating the effectiveness of potential remeinjector relocadial actions, such as tion. Specific questions on modeling techniques should be referred to the authors.

REFERENCES
1. H. Pomroy, W. L. Muldoon. and T. Improved Stench Fire Warning "for Underground Mines. BuMines IC 9016, 1985,
,

33 pp.

Products and Other Contaminants in the (contract Ventilation System of Mines J0285002, MI Technol. Univ.). BuMines NTIS PB 82263 pp.; OFR 22-82, 1981,
183104.
6. . Study of Mine Fires and Part I. Computer SimMine Ventilation. ulation of Ventilation Systems Under the Fires (contract Influence Mine of BuMines Univ.). S0241032, MI Technol. OFR 115(l)-78, 1977, 165 pp.; NTIS PB 288 231/AS. 7. A Study of Precalculation . Effect of Fires on Ventilation of the Systems of Mines (contract J0285002, MI BuMines OFR 19-84, Univ.). Technol. 1983, 293 pp.; NTIS PB 84-159979. T. S. Marks 8. Baumeister, and L. Standard Handbook for Mechanical (eds.). 1967, McGraw-Hill, 7th ed. Engineers.
,
,

Ouderkirk, S. J., H. W. Pomroy, Edwards, and J. Marks. Mine Stench Fire Warning Computer Model Development and In-Mine Validation Testing. Paper in Proceedings of 2nd U.S. Mine Ventilation Symposium, (Univ. of NV-Reno, Reno, NV, Sept. 23-25, 1985), A. A. Balkema, 1985, pp. 29-35. 3. Edwards, J. C. E. Greuer. and R. Real-Time Calculation of Productof-Combustion Spread in Multilevel a Mine. BuMines IC 8901, 1982, 117 pp. 4. Edwards, J. C, and J. S. Li. Computer Simulation of Ventilation in Multilevel Mines. Paper in Proceedings of 3rd International Mine Ventilation Congress (Harrogate, England, 13-19, 1984). June Inst. Min. and Metall. 1984, pp. 47-51. 5. Greuer, R. E. Real-Time Precalculations of the Distribution of Combustion
2.

J.

C.

pp. 4-72.
D. 9. Drysdale, An Introduction to Fire Dynamics. Wiley, 1985, pp. 152-185.

U.S.

GOVERNMENT PRINTING

OFFICE: 1987

605-017 60 081

INT.-BU.0F M!NES,PGH.,PA. 28565

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Mines Prod, end Datr.

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

Cochrane Mill Road P.O. Box 18070

Pittsburgh, Pa.

15236

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. 1300

] Do not wi sh to
material,

recei ve thi s please remove

list.

from your mailing

Address change. Please correct as indicated*

4
G

*iN*o

^6*

<v

%/
*~

*'

V
*'"

^^

^. *w*
V)

^o
Q4>
*

--

<^

<>

*' *

!*

>

vs \,J

"-OV^ -^te-

'^fe'-

\/ :- Vo*

'^>

\/ -iSfe Vo<
o

V
t-

I*