EFFECTS OF BOOSTER FANS IN VENTILATION

NETWORKS COMPUTATIONAL AND

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACHES
Arash Habibi
and

Stewart Gillies
US Mine Ventilation Symposium
Salt Lake City 2012

Outline
Introduction

Booster Fans Usage in The World

Experimental Mine Study

Booster Fans Installation
Computational Fluid Dynamic Approach

Conclusion

Introduction
Booster fan is a large underground fan which is
installed in series with main fan to boost the pressure.

In the United States coal mines are required to use

surface fans for ventilation and the use of booster
fans is prohibited with the exception of anthracite
mines.
In the United States, Title 30 Part 75 Subpart D of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) defines the
requirements for underground coal mine ventilation
(Federal Register 2010).

Booster fans in the world

Booster fans are used in mines in all foreign major
coal mining countries requiring this form of
ventilating air motivation including the United
Kingdom, Australia, Poland, South Africa and China.
In the United Kingdom, Australia, South Africa and
many other countries a performance-based approach
to regulation that emphasizes risk assessment
management is practiced.
For booster fans to be permitted in the United
Kingdom for instance an extensive ventilation survey
must be conducted to identify how the ventilation
system is affected by booster fans.

MS&T Experimental Mine Study

Mine is in dolomite. Mine is accessed by two adits and has three
raises to the surface along with the primary ventilation shaft.

Ventilation Infrastructure

Main fan

Experimental mine elbow

P-Q Survey and Model

(Ventsim Visual)
Main Fan
West Booster Fan

Wheeler Portal

East Booster Fan

Kennedy Portal

Ventilation Stations
#2
#1
#4

#4
#5
#6

#7
#9
#8

#10

Comparison of predicted Ventsim Visual and

experiments results
Q (m3/s)
Vent Station

Measured Quantity at

Predicted Ventsim Visual

% Difference MQ vs
VQ

Mine

Results

19.0

17.8

6.9

18.2

17.8

2.1

0.3

0.3

0.0

18.3

17.3

5.7

16.7

17.4

4.3

16.1

15.8

2.0

12.2

12.9

4.0

12.2

12.9

0.0

15.4

15.8

2.5

10

11.9

10.5

13

Average % Difference between measured and Ventsim quantities

4.1

Simulations Scenarios
Four Different Scenarios:
1. Main Fan
2. Main + East Booster Fan
3. Main + West Booster Fan

4. Main + Both Booster Fans

Booster fan characteristics curve:

Scenario 3, Experimental and Ventsim Visual Results

Ps adj

Q (m3/s)

Pa

Pa

m/s

3
Kg/m

Ns2/m8

Ns2/m4

Experiment Ventsim

0.01

10

15.86

3.5

1.194

0.03848

0.0662

20.2

18.8

7.4

98.51

0.02

20

24.71

3.8

1.200

0.23521

0.6212

20.3

18.7

8.6

-7.09

98.49

7.09

0.02

1.205

0.07606

1.3190

0.2

0.2

0.0

8.7

-14.17

98.49

0.02

20

5.83

2.2

1.204

0.01534

0.0299

19.2

17.8

7.6

10.1

6.4

12.92

98.47

0.02

20

32.92

3.1

1.197

0.07675

0.0729

19.9

20.0

0.5

10.4

6.7

4.67

98.45

4.67

3.2

1.191

0.01233

0.0065

21.5

20.0

7.4

8.3

4.3

1.17

98.45

0.02

20

21.17

1.191

0.06954

0.0278

17.3

19.5

11.2

8.1

4.1

-14.08

98.43

-0.01 -10

24.08

4.3

1.196

0.06216

0.0256

17.5

19.5

10.5

10.3

6.4

-41.26

98.44

41.26

3.4

1.202

0.13270

0.0549

21.8

20.0

9.2

10

8.0

4.0

3.4

1.203

0.00000

13.5

11.9

13.0

Area

RL Adj

Ps

2
m

Pa

kPa

kPa

9.7

5.8

5.86

98.52

9.3

5.3

4.71

15.5

12.8

11.9

98.44

Average % Difference between measured and Ventsim quantities

7.5

Simulation Results and Conclusion:

The third scenario maintains the airflow at station 7 as well as other
stations with the lowest cost.

Fan Duty
Stations Quantity (m3/s)

Quantity (m3/s)

Pressure (Pa)

Alternatives

East

West

Booster

Booster

East

West

Booster

Booster

246.9

19

161.5

112.7

18.8

212.9

81

148.9

91

76

Main
1

Main Fan

2 Main + East Booster

Power

Main

(kW)

10

17.7

12.9

10.5

6.7

19.2

18.5

15.8

11.7

8.0

18.2

19.7

18.8

19.5

11.9

7.5

19.1

19.5

19.8

19.8

21.3

10.7

9.9

Main + West

3
Booster

Main + Both
4

Boosters

Bulkheads Construction
Blasting during 2011 Summer Explosives camp

Anchoring the
Frame to The
Back of The Mine
Attach Frame Pieces
With Steel Plate

Expanded Foam Speray

Cementitious Mixture

Wedge Head Anchor Bolt

CFD Approach
As a mine gets older, leakage will increase as
ventilation pressure increases and ventilation structures
deteriorate.
Every stopping leaks after a while.

Recirculation is the main concern of using Booster

fan.
The CFD model of experimental mine has been built
based on the simplified Ventsim Ventilation model.

Experimental Mine CFD Model

Booster Fan

CFD Model Outline

Grid independent study has been conducted using GAMBIT

(650,000 to 1,200,000 tetrahedral cells).

Simulation Results (No Booster Fan)

The CFD model has been calibrated with experimental
measurements.
Air Quantity at Stations (m3/s)
Model
1

Stopping

Kennedy

Raise

Leakage

Portal

Leakage

Main outlet

Experiment

20.8

20.8

20.8

0.2

0.3

0.3

19.7

CFD

20.8

20.7

20.4

0.12

0.2

0.2

20.5

0.5

66.7

50

50

3.9

Difference%

No Fan Velocity

Simulation Results (Booster Fan)

A constant pressure jump of 500 Pascal has been assigned.
Air Quantity at Stations (m3/s)

Model
1

Stopping Kennedy

Raise

Main

Booster

Leakage

Portal

Leakage

outlet

fan

Experiment

21.3

20.8

20.8

0.4

0.2

0.9

19.2

21.9

CFD

20.77 20.52

20.72

0.34

0.15

0.6

20.9

21.4

0.4

17.6

33.3

50.0

8.1

2.3

Difference

2.6

1.4

Video with Booster Fan

Conclusions
A booster fan, when properly sized and sited, can be
used to assist surface fans to overcome high
resistances and to ventilate isolated working
districts.

Uncontrolled recirculation is the main hazard

associated with the utilization of a booster fan.
Monitoring is a basic component of a booster fan
system. Reliable Monitoring System!!

Conclusions (cont.)
Legislative restrictions such as restricting use of
booster fans could force the closure of sub economic
operations.

Booster fans could be one of the solutions for

improving the ventilation network. However it is not
the only one. All the other alternatives should be
taken into account.
Three-dimensional CFD technique demonstrates the
airflow direction, pressure drop and the amount of
leakage across the stoppings and bulkheads.

Acknowledgments
Acknowledgement and thanks extended to:
Dr. Gillies, Dr. Tien, Dr. Homan.
Dr. Thiruvengadam (for CFD analysis).
Experimental Mine and Rock Mechanics and Explosives
Research Center personnel (for fan installation).
NIOSH (for funding the project).
Spendrup (fans donation and advice).

RL

RL

X-area

Area

Ps

Ps

Temp

Adj
m

2
m

2.1

2.8

9.7

5.8

10.5

5.86

98.64

0.01

10

15.86

2.1

2.5

9.3

5.3

23

4.71

98.63

110.77
9.71
9.4

301.5

302.0

150

adj

Pressure
Pa
kPa Gradient
kPa Pa
Pa

100

Wb

db

3
2
8
m/s Kg/m Ns /m

Ns2/m4

10.0 15.0 3.3 1.195 0.04567

124.43
114.96

0.0786

124.62
123.23
14.2 3.4
1.202 0.11461
111.62

0.3027

302.4

2.4

5.3

15.5

12.8

5.27

-7.10

98.63

2.10

10.8 11.9 0.02 1.206 0.02456

0.4259

301.8

2.650 3.4

11.9

8.7

20.1

-14.19

98.62

0.03

30

15.81

10.3 11.9 2.1 1.205 0.05196

0.1014

300.6

2.4

2.6

10.1

6.4

29

12.94

98.59

0.01

10

22.94

10.0 12.2 2.6 1.199 0.08521

0.0810

301.7

2.4

2.8

10.4

6.7

34

4.68

98.58

9.68

10.6 15.0 2.4 1.193 0.04415

0.0234

302.1

2.1

2.1

8.3

4.3

22.5

1.17

0.01

6.17

10.8 15.0 3.1 1.193 0.03745

0.0150

11.1 15.0

1.197 0.50255

0.2069

-85.18
-84.69
31.26 11.7 12.8 2.4 1.202 0.16824

0.0696

Total Pressure (Pa)

10

20

30

98.58

40

50

60

70

80

-50
8

302.2

301.0

10 297.5

2.2

2.1
-100

2.1

1.8-75.91
8.1-76.584.1-79.5138
-75.55
3.0
10.3

-78.39
6.4

-14.09
-80.69

98.57 0.11 110 95.91

-84.76
-81.58

-80.25
-81.08
-84.77
37
-41.26 98.46 0.01 10

Plane Distance (m)

1.9

8.0

4.0

98.45

11.7 12.2

1.203 0.00000

ui

0
t
xi

ui

p
u i u j

ui u j

t
x j
xi x j x j xi

k u i
t
xi
x j

u i
t
xi
x j

t C

k2

Gk uiu j

u iu j
x j

Gk
x j

C1 Gk C 2

x
k
k
j

u j
xi

u i u j
u iu j t

x j xi

2
k
ij
3