7
• The new model simulates a larger mined area.
• No air leakage was assumed at the curtain installed in
the first crosscut.
• The orientation of the intake fan was adjusted to
direct air towards the inby of entry 93, enhancing
airflow towards the advanced faces at entries M-59
and M-61 (see Figure 1).
• Pressure boundary conditions were assigned for the
model’s inlets and outlet.
Figure 8 and Figure 9 show the airflow streamlines com-
puted for Layout-I and Layout-II, respectively. Layout-I
and Layout-II exhibit comparable airflow patterns. It is
worth mentioning that most of the airflow coming from
the Inlet-1 portal moves toward the outlet portal through
crosscut (X1), with minimal impact on airflow in other
areas. Meanwhile, the airflow at the remaining crosscuts
(X2, X3, etc.) originates from the Inlet-2 portal.
Grau et al, 2006 rated mine ventilation system by cal-
culating ventilation efficiency. The ventilation efficiency
was defined as the percent of useful ventilation air quan-
tity passing a specific point compared to the total possible
air quantity available. Hence, the ventilation efficiency was
assessed in this stat seven designated points, labeled as A
to G. Table 1 provides the ventilation efficiency results
expressed as a percentage of the airflow at each designated
face relative to the total inlet airflow of layout-I and layout-
II are 191.55 m3/s and 179.74 m3/s, respectively.
The findings derived from the CFD models showcased
a significant enhancement in ventilation effectiveness at
the advanced areas (A, B, and C) within Layout-II, attrib-
uted to the increased length of the stone stopping in place.
Figure 7. The correlation between the CFD model’s average
velocity and the measured spring ventilation air velocity
Figure 8. Streamlines of airflow computed for the stone
stoppings in Layout-I
Figure 9. Streamlines of airflow computed for the stone
stoppings in Layout-II
Table 1. Airflow and ventilation efficiencies at specific
locations within both Layout-I and Layout-II
• The new model simulates a larger mined area.
• No air leakage was assumed at the curtain installed in
the first crosscut.
• The orientation of the intake fan was adjusted to
direct air towards the inby of entry 93, enhancing
airflow towards the advanced faces at entries M-59
and M-61 (see Figure 1).
• Pressure boundary conditions were assigned for the
model’s inlets and outlet.
Figure 8 and Figure 9 show the airflow streamlines com-
puted for Layout-I and Layout-II, respectively. Layout-I
and Layout-II exhibit comparable airflow patterns. It is
worth mentioning that most of the airflow coming from
the Inlet-1 portal moves toward the outlet portal through
crosscut (X1), with minimal impact on airflow in other
areas. Meanwhile, the airflow at the remaining crosscuts
(X2, X3, etc.) originates from the Inlet-2 portal.
Grau et al, 2006 rated mine ventilation system by cal-
culating ventilation efficiency. The ventilation efficiency
was defined as the percent of useful ventilation air quan-
tity passing a specific point compared to the total possible
air quantity available. Hence, the ventilation efficiency was
assessed in this stat seven designated points, labeled as A
to G. Table 1 provides the ventilation efficiency results
expressed as a percentage of the airflow at each designated
face relative to the total inlet airflow of layout-I and layout-
II are 191.55 m3/s and 179.74 m3/s, respectively.
The findings derived from the CFD models showcased
a significant enhancement in ventilation effectiveness at
the advanced areas (A, B, and C) within Layout-II, attrib-
uted to the increased length of the stone stopping in place.
Figure 7. The correlation between the CFD model’s average
velocity and the measured spring ventilation air velocity
Figure 8. Streamlines of airflow computed for the stone
stoppings in Layout-I
Figure 9. Streamlines of airflow computed for the stone
stoppings in Layout-II
Table 1. Airflow and ventilation efficiencies at specific
locations within both Layout-I and Layout-II