Mining Mechanics. A New Interpretation of a Term

UDC: 622.2

Mining mechanics: A new interpretation of an old term
By A.E. Golbert
(Monchengladbach, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany)
________________________________________
Abstract
This article examines the subject matter and research directions within a branch of mining science known as Mining Mechanics. The term “Mining Mechanics” appears to reflect a historical tradition in Soviet and Russian mining science rather than a clearly defined research domain.  In essence, mining mechanics has fragmented into separate disciplines. The author proposes to define a new, fundamentally different branch of mining science and to name it using the old term “Mining Mechanics”. The emergence of this branch in practice can be associated with significant events in the recent history of the USSR—specifically, the restoration of flooded mines in the Donbas during and immediately after the Great Patriotic War of 1941–1945.
Keywords: mining science, mining mechanics, mine, fixed installation, fixed machine, mine dewatering, research subject, general location, optimal layout, joint operation.
________________________________________
Introduction
Mining Mechanics, as is known, studies fixed installations at mining enterprises. It investigates the operating principles, functions, design, technical operation (and sometimes maintenance) of fixed machines and the installations as a whole. Fixed installations include ventilation, dewatering, pneumatic, and hoisting systems. Sometimes, heating and air-cooling installations are also included. There exist terms reflecting reality: “fixed installations of mines”, “fixed installations of ore mines”, “fixed installations of open-pit mines (quarries)”. These are often used individually, for example, “mine dewatering or hoisting (fixed) installation”—see also [1, 2, 3].
Nevertheless, the term Mining Mechanics (hereinafter referred to as MM) has not yet fully fallen out of use and continues to appear, for instance, in the title of a well-known textbook [4], and occasionally even in ambiguous or incorrect contexts, such as in [5]. However, in our view, its use is unjustified in any case. The author of this article proposes to repurpose this term—i.e., to assign it a meaning distinct from its current one.
________________________________________
Main Part
Apparently, since its inception, mining plant mechanics—later known as MM—focused on the mechanization of all processes in mining production. It described, generalized, and studied all mining machines existing at the time and newly developed ones. Naturally, the greatest attention was given to fixed machines and installations, as they were the most critical production components, without which mining enterprises operating at an industrial scale could not have existed even then.
At the same time, mining machines of other functional groups, if they existed at all, were in a rudimentary state. Later, as these machines developed in practice, the corresponding disciplines also differentiated. To MM were assigned those areas that had already been substantially studied—namely, hoisting, ventilation, dewatering, and pneumatic fixed installations.
Differentiation and integration are normal processes in the progressive development of science, and their evaluation should not be based solely on immediate results; long-term prospects are far more important. Reflections along these lines lead us to conclude that, during its formation, MM was not an organic, unified discipline—and this is acceptable at the initial stage. However, such unity was not achieved even after the aforementioned differentiation, when MM remained in a formally existing state up to the present day. Thus, we observe that centrifugal tendencies have come to dominate the field.
What direction might future structural transformations take? This is the subject of the following discussion.
Upon closer examination, it becomes evident that the boundaries of MM research, even formally, are not clearly defined and are, in some places, entirely blurred. This situation partly accounts for the largely independent evolution of individual subfields within what is nominally Mining Mechanics as self-sufficient fields. Thus, we assert that today, MM as a single, structured branch of mining science does not exist.
In other words, we believe it is necessary to re-establish—or, if permissible, to found anew—MM. Therefore, the first step should be to define the research subject of a new branch of mining science bearing the old, familiar name. The core contribution of this paper is the definition of such a research subject, which would determine the structure and content of the yet-to-be-defined MM, encompassing both theoretical and applied research.
There is no need to elaborate extensively on the differences between the concepts of “fixed machine” and “fixed installation”. However, we consider it necessary to clearly distinguish between these concepts at a practical level. Thus, the study of fixed machines per se—to the extent that this does not significantly compromise subsequent results—should be excluded from the scope of MM.
For example, fixed compressors, widely used across many industrial sectors, have long been the subject of a specialized scientific and technical field equipped with specific theoretical and experimental methods. Much of what is said about compressors also applies to pumps and fans. However, this principle does not fully apply to hoisting machines with complex drives and braking systems. In such cases, specialists in MM more frequently need to collaborate continuously with experts from adjacent scientific disciplines.
We previously presented to the engineering community a project outlining our view of the research subject of the proposed renewed MM [6, 7]. It received mixed feedback and requires clarification, as suggested below.
MM is a branch of mining engineering or a technical field of scientific knowledge that studies the design and operation of fixed installations at mining enterprises. However, MM does not engage in the study of fixed machines, except when such study pertains to their regulation and operation within fixed installations. If fixed machines (types, models, modifications, etc.) are investigated specifically for application in mining, or if such application significantly affects their operating principle, design, or configuration, then research reflecting this specific operational context falls within the scope of MM. In such cases, MM specialists may collaborate with mechanical engineers and experts in related fields. Of course, none of these statements are dogma, and justified exceptions may exist—but the existence of clear principles remains essential.
Thus, freed from theoretical studies of fixed machines, MM can focus on other significant components of fixed installations. Alongside parallel studies of different installations, attention must be paid to their integrated (!) investigation, as significant achievements—including the creation of new, more advanced fixed installations—can be expected at the intersection of existing scientific fields.
Our observations and reflections on what could serve as the unifying “cement” binding all fixed installations together—and thus justify MM as a coherent discipline—led to the following conclusion. This unity is not based on the similarity of physical processes or operating principles, nor on the identity of component designs (which, for instance, do not exist between blade machines and rope hoisting systems). Instead, it is based on the functional similarity of components across entirely different types and systems of fixed installations.
Upon deeper examination of ventilation, dewatering, compressor, and hoisting installations from the perspective of their immediate function—regardless of their ultimate purpose—it becomes clear that all of them are transport means. Thus, components from one type of installation can be applied in another. The extreme case of such transformation occurs when a modified installation of one type performs the function of another. A prerequisite for this is the common spatial location of key components from different installations—primarily the mine shaft with its adjacent headframe and shaft collar (shaft chambers). Other underground workings, such as sumps, may also serve this purpose.
Now, some clarifications regarding fixed machines. Such machines should remain central to MM’s intellectual focus. The task of MM is to optimally select, regulate, and vary the capabilities of these machines across different fixed installations. A fixed machine is, of course, a mandatory component of an installation, but not necessarily restricted to installations of a single type. Machines can be varied during design and may “compete” as alternative configurations for a given installation—this is one of the goals of the discipline.
For example:
• A pump (slurry pump) may be used non-traditionally in a hoisting installation on an inclined shaft to extract a water-coal mixture;
• A hoisting machine may be used in a dewatering installation (dewatering via hoisting vessels—skips or buckets);
• A pneumatic machine (compressor) may be used in hoisting and dewatering installations (airlift).
Multiple identical fixed machines may be used within a single installation:
• Multi-stage rope hoisting in ultra-deep vertical shafts;
• Deep vertical shaft dewatering using sequentially connected main or main and booster centrifugal (or other) pumps.
Different fixed machines may also be combined:
• A hoisting machine and a pump—for instance, in dewatering where water is pumped into hoisting vessels;
• A pump operating in series with an airlift, enabling water to be lifted to heights far exceeding the individual technical capabilities of either device alone—demonstrating interaction between two fixed machines (pump and compressor) within one installation.
Earlier, it was noted that fixed installations exhibit properties arising from their joint spatial operation. Among these properties are interdependence and, at times, mutual reliance. Common components may exist, serving different installations alternately or simultaneously. Such a component may be a fixed machine.
For example, a pipeline designed to pump water from a mine to the surface may, with a pre-designed system of branches and valves, also serve as an air pipeline supplying compressed air to underground operations. A hollow conductor of a hoisting installation, after implementing specific technical solutions, may simultaneously serve as both a guide and a pipeline, performing—alongside its primary function—the removal of water from or delivery of compressed air into the mine, as per the author’s invention [8]. In this case, the dual-function hollow conductor operates on both its outer and inner surfaces, not to mention other positive effects of this technical solution.
The interaction of fixed installations may be not only direct but also indirect, with functional linkage in both cases. An example is the author’s invention [9]: the unloading gate of a shaft sinking skip complex is used in the ventilation shaft of an operating mine. This gate simultaneously serves as a device for unloading hoisting vessels (buckets) and as a ventilation door in an airlock, preventing recirculation in the main mine ventilation fan. In other words, it ensures both normal airflow parameters for mine ventilation and proper operation of the hoisting installation serving the deepening of the ventilation shaft in an active mining enterprise.
In this invention, the modified unloading gate is an integral part of the hoisting installation and simultaneously functions as a ventilation door—a component of the mine ventilation system, complementing the function of the ventilation installation. Thus, we observe a purposeful interaction between two fixed installations, which significantly simplified or even enabled the operation of the skip complex under challenging conditions.
________________________________________
Conclusion
We have presented only a partial list of known non-standard applications of fixed machines and other components of fixed installations. Many more original technical solutions in this area remain unknown. Indeed, the field for exploration is vast, even if the study and development of fixed machines themselves remain outside its scope.
Effective and widespread use of the potential for joint operation of mine fixed installations and their components can be observed in the recent history of the Soviet Union, during and immediately after the Great Patriotic War. During the restoration of exploded and flooded mines, mine dewatering began immediately after the retreat of Nazi forces. This large-scale event—primarily in the Donbas mines—represents, in our view, the starting point, or the time and place of birth, of the MM we have persistently proposed to establish (see journalistic articles [10, 11] ). It should be noted that the factual content of these journalistic articles does not seem entirely reliable to us; however, this remark does not detract from the overall scale of the events described.
According to the Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR “On Awarding Stalin Prizes for Outstanding Inventions and Fundamental Improvements in Production Methods in 1947” (published in Pravda, 3 June 1948), the First Stalin Prize was conferred upon a group of engineers and managers for the development and implementation of advanced methods for dewatering flooded Donbas mines and restoring mining equipment, significantly accelerating the recovery of the Donbas. The list included 17 laureates. Reflecting on that difficult period, one can assume that many more were deserving. These remarkable pages of national history serve as retrospective evidence supporting our claim to establish a new branch of mining engineering with the proposed research subject.
Today, MM as a unified branch of mining science or a structured scientific discipline essentially does not exist. It has fragmented into separate fields focusing on fixed machines and often on the corresponding installations. The term MM has largely fallen out of use.
We believe that under this name, a branch of mining science should exist, with a research subject clearly defined based on real prerequisites. The point is not merely to find a subject for MM, but to accurately identify and define the domain of potential synthetic scientific and technical research that has emerged between nearly unrelated disciplines currently grouped under the label of MM. This domain can be named as desired. We propose to name it MM.
In our conception, the renewed MM should concentrate its main creative efforts not on studying or producing fixed machines, but on researching the problems of creating, optimally configuring, and jointly operating fixed installations under a wide range of mining enterprise conditions.
A large number of existing works fall under this proposed definition of MM.*  Many works on fixed machines do not. However, we consider it both appropriate and timely to separate from MM those scientific disciplines that have already matured independently and often “speak” in their own specialized language.
_______________________________________
* In our view, the book [12] represents a canonical work on renewed mining mechanics, or MM, as defined above.
Below is the annotation to this work:
The book Drainage of Mines during the Restoration of the Donbas summarizes the experience of dewatering flooded mines in the Donets Basin during their restoration (1943–1948). It presents characteristics of mine flooding, water volumes and natural inflows, descriptions of equipment and devices used, dewatering schemes, and organization of work. The final chapter is devoted to the results of dewatering operations in the flooded Donbas mines. The book is intended for engineering and technical personnel.
In our opinion, this work—75 years after its publication—has not lost its relevance, at least as a practical guide and educational resource.
________________________________________
References
1. Fixed Installations of Mines / V.S. Duline, G.A. Babak, V.V. Pak et al.; edited by B.F. Bratchenko. — Moscow: Nedra, 1977. — 438 p. (in Russian)
2. Geyer V.G., Timoshenko G.M. Mine Ventilation and Dewatering Installations. — Moscow: Nedra, 1987. — 268 p. (in Russian)
3. Bezhyok V.R. et al. Manual for Inspection, Adjustment, and Testing of Mine Hoisting Installations. Normative Production-Practical Edition / V.R. Bezhyok, V.D. Konoplyanoi, E.M. Kurchenko; edited by V.A. Korsun. — Donetsk: Donechchyna, 2009. — 672 p. (in Russian)
4. Khadzhikov R.N., Butakov S.A. Mining Mechanics: Textbook for Mining Colleges. — Moscow: Nedra, 1982. — 407 p. (in Russian)
5. Kurbatova O.A., Kharin A.Z. History of the Development of Mining Mechanics: Educational Manual. — Vladivostok: DVGTU Publishing House, 2004. — 137 p. (in Russian)
6. Golbert A.E. Unknown Mining Mechanics: Research Subject // Ugol, 2005, No. 2, pp. 22–24. (in Russian)
7. Golbert A.E. Renewed Mining Mechanics: Defining the Research Field // Gornyi Zhurnal Kazakhstan, 2011, No. 2, pp. 44–47. (in Russian)
8. Pat. No. 2106562 Russian Federation, IPC 6 F16L 1/00. Pipeline / A.E. Golbert; applicant and patent holder A.E. Golbert. — No. 93036979/06; filed 20.07.1993; published 10.03.1998, Bull. No. 7 (in Russian)
9. Pat. No. 2027009 Russian Federation, IPC 6 E21D 1/00. Surface Hoisting and Transport Device / A.E. Golbert; applicant and patent holder A.E. Golbert. — No. 5058495/03; filed 11.08.1992; published 20.01.1995, Bull. No. 2 (in Russian)
10. Davydov L. Expulsion of the Underground Sea // Tekhnika — Molodyozhi, 1948, No. 6 (in Russian)
11. Davydov L. Addendum to the Article “Expulsion of the Underground Sea” // Tekhnika — Molodyozhi, 1948, No. 12 (in Russian)
12. Dewatering of Mines during the Restoration of the Donbas / N.N. Ignatov, V.G. Geyer, N.M. Chernavkin et al. — Moscow: Gornoye Delo, 1950. — 368 p.
___________________________________________
Author information:
Golbert  A.E., mining engineer-electromechanic;
golbert.arthur@gmail.com, ORCID ID: 0009-0003-8870-8141