TECHNICAL-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF SCHEMES FOR THE SURFACE TECHNOLOGICAL COMPLEX OF KUZBASS MINES

(For discussion)

A. T. MARTYNENKO

The technological surface complexes of Kuzbass mines built during the first five-year plans consisted mainly of loading structures of the bunker type and of storage facilities—trestles or sector stockpiles equipped with scraper installations. In rare cases the surface technological complexes included simple cleaning, carried out by manual picking of waste rock from the coarse coal sizes. Thus the entire technology of coal handling on the mine surface consisted of transportation, storage, and loading of coal into railway cars. Therefore, for such schemes the term “loading-and-storage facilities of mines” is more appropriate than “technological complex.” In the present work we shall use this term when considering schemes that do not have preparation plants or sizing plants.

The loading-and-storage facilities of Kuzbass mines are essentially arranged according to the following three basic schemes:

1. Bunkers and stockpiles not connected with one another by a transport branch.
2. Bunkers and stockpiles connected with one another by a transport branch for loading coal into railway cars.
3. A single loading-and-storage complex both for receiving coal from the mine and for loading it into cars (open bunkering).

Bunkers and stockpiles not connected with one another by a transport branch

This equipment scheme was widely used at most mines of the Kuznetsk coal basin. Usually the loading structures here were bunkers, while the storage facilities were trestles extending along the railway loading tracks. The mineral was loaded from under the trestles manually, by various loading and conveying machines, through hatches, or directly into railway cars (Fig. 1). Subsequently, with the mass production by factories of scraper equipment, the use of trestle systems for forming coal stockpiles began to be abandoned, with preference given to the construction of open stockpiles with the spreading of coal over the yard by scraper installations. The operation of such stockpiles for reclaiming coal from storage was likewise, at first, not connected with the operation of the bunker structures.

At the mines of the Soviet Union, trestle stockpiles had become so widespread that this fact could not be disregarded. To proceed by way of a complete reconstruction of the loading-and-storage facilities of these mines, orienting them toward new mechanization schemes, required large capital investments. Thus, the absence of suitable designs of loading machines for mechanizing the loading of coal from under trestles prompted engineering thought to convert the latter into semi-bunkers. In this case, with relatively small capital expenditures, it was found—

but rather a compromise solution satisfying the technical requirements for shipping coal to consumers.

It should be noted that semi-bunker trestle storage yards proved to be so technically and economically expedient [1,30] that they began to be recommended and practically implemented at mines with a small annual capacity.

Fig. 1

Bunkers and storage yards interconnected by a transport branch for loading coal into railway cars

The difficulties of mechanizing trestle storage yards, on the one hand, and the complete uncertainty as to their required capacity, on the other, led to the creation of a new equipment scheme for loading-and-storage facilities at mines, based on the principle of a fully defined interdependence between loading bunkers and storage yards.

Scraper equipment, as the simplest for mass production, rapidly began to be introduced into the coal industry. It must be noted that the possibility of widespread use of scraper installations for equipping storage yards at mines had long been debated. The impossibility of applying them was explained mainly by severe climatic conditions, especially in Siberia, where coal in piles would freeze together and therefore the thick crust that formed could not be taken by the scraper. In addition, owing to the nature of scraper operation, crushing and disintegration of the coal would inevitably occur. The practice of scraper installations not only in the coal industry but also in many other branches of industry (railways, power stations, metallurgical plants) proved the contrary. In particular, the crushing of coal, as experiments with scrapers have shown, amounts to a figure of the order of up to 5–7%; moreover, this is not of especially great significance, since there is considerable demand for coal dust ...

consumers even in Siberia (Kemerovo, Kuznetsk, Novosibirsk, Omsk power stations, and others). Scraper equipment for coal storage yards, as compared with grab cranes, has a substantial advantage both in terms of capital costs and operating expenses, not to mention simplicity and reliability in operation. Therefore, at present this equipment is so far the only one in our Union that meets the necessary requirements for mechanizing coal storage yards.

As is usually the case, the final solution of a question is almost always preceded by various alternatives, and some of them may even receive practical implementation; this was also the case with independent-operation scraper storage yards. Below we present a scheme of such an installation (Fig. 2). In this case, as can be seen from the diagram, in addition to a railway loading bunker of considerable capacity, a loading hopper is also constructed, through which coal from the scraper storage yard is loaded into railway cars.

Fig. 2

The inadequacy of such a scheme is so obvious that it requires no special proof.

Experience in the operation of existing mines indicates that, even when the railway transport is well organized in supplying cars to the mines, the coefficient of utilization of the existing bunker capacity is not so high that the bunker could not be used as a hopper when issuing coal from the storage yard. It is known that a loading hopper has no capacity, and therefore in this case coal can be issued from the storage yard only when cars have been supplied for loading. But then we can successfully load coal through the bunker as well, and under certain conditions even accumulate coal in the bunker by the time cars are supplied for loading (the case of “batch” delivery of cars to the mines). When coal is loaded through a separate hopper, which is usually built in the form of a one-sided chute, it is impossible to ensure the same loading capacity as from bunkers with central loading; this leads to excessive car idle time and to an increase in the cost of the work on account of the enlarged staff of workers engaged in leveling coal in the cars. Thus, a scraper storage yard equipped according to an independent-operation scheme in the presence of bunker structures at the mine, apart from making the loading-and-storage installations more expensive, gives nothing. Unfortunately, such schemes for equipping storage yards have in some places received practical implementation.

The equipment scheme under consideration pursued the goal of obtaining a single complex of loading-and-storage installations fully mechanizing the labor-intensive process of loading coal into railway cars. In this case, the loading—

…structures are bunkers, while the storage structures are stationary scraper installations serving chiefly the sectors. Scraper equipment is advantageously distinguished from the others by the fact that one and the same power unit provides both the work of distributing coal over the storage yard and of feeding it back into the bunkers. In addition, when a mine produces different grades of coal that are not subject to mixing, a scraper storage yard, it would seem, better than any other, provides the possibility of separate storage of coal by sectors. Below we give the basic layouts of equipment for the loading-and-storage facilities of mines according to the second scheme (Fig. 3).

The return delivery of coal from the storage yard to the loading bunkers in the scheme under consideration is usually carried out by elevators, skip-lift hoists, scraper conveyors, or belt conveyors. The capacity of the transport mechanisms used for transferring coal from storage yards to bunkers depends on the type of mechanism adopted. The most compact layouts are provided by

Fig. 3

such transport mechanisms as can ensure the lifting of coal from the hoppers of the scraper storage yard into the bunkers at a large angle to the horizontal. In this respect, elevators and skip-lift hoists prove more acceptable; however, they have a substantial disadvantage, consisting, on the one hand, in their low capacity and, on the other, in their requiring careful maintenance and technical supervision in operation. Since this equipment layout for the loading-and-storage facility provided mainly for interaction in the operation of bunker structures with storage yards, it seemed that a greater capacity of the transport equipment for the return discharge of coal from the storage yard would not be required, owing to the fact that by the time the mines equipped according to this scheme were put into operation, the work of railway transport would have risen to a higher level. All the more so since this…

…scheme, unlike the first, with all other circumstances being equal, will make it possible to use the existing capacity of the bunker installations more fully.

The presence of interconnection between the storage facilities and the bunker structures in effect turns the stores into additional loading structures for the bunkers. Despite the complete mechanization of coal unloading into cars, the scheme under consideration, owing to the small capacity of the stores and the insufficient capacity of conveyor transport for the reverse delivery of coal from the store, was unable to satisfy the existing operating regime of rail transport for removing coal from mines. Heavy-weight routes have still not been fully mastered by these mines. In Kuzbass there are only up to ten mines whose loading-and-storage facilities have been built according to this scheme, and some of them have already undergone reconstruction, chiefly with respect to expansion of the stores. Below we list several Kuzbass mines built according to this scheme (Table 1).

Table 1

The scheme considered for equipping loading-and-storage facilities was the principal one up to 1937, and in all the coal basins of the Union it became widespread.

The specific conditions of the Kuznetsk coal basin, far removed from such large consumers as the industry of the Urals, and also the systematic, year-by-year difficulties in providing cars for coal haulage, forced technical thought to work intensively on the creation of new schemes for loading-and-storage facilities. Careful observation of the operation of loading-and-storage facilities equipped on the principle of interconnecting bunkers with scraper stores indicates that, nevertheless, the main mass of coal passes through the stores. And, with low-capacity transport equipment for the reverse delivery of coal from the stores into the bunkers, the mines are very often unprepared for the loading of route trains¹. Reinforced-concrete railway loading bunkers with central unloading are rather expensive structures. Thus, for example, the bunker of mine No.-v costs about 350 thousand rubles. At the same time, such a structure, though sufficiently capacious, does not produce the proper effect in operation. Therefore the trust “Vostokshakhtoproekt,” for new large mines and subsequently also for mines of medium capacity, adopted a new scheme of open bunkering, representing a unified loading-and-storage complex (a scraper store of large capacity with a loading chute over the railway tracks). In this case, according to the conditions of the unloading regime, the stores are equipped with powerful scraper installations, which made it possible to increase their capacity in comparison with the second equipment scheme; and there was a great need for this. Thus, in 1943 the author of the present work had to reconstruct the loading-and-storage facilities of one of the

mines of Kuzbass, in connection with which we studied the movement of coal through the storage yards of the mine of interest to us and through the trust as a whole.

Table 2

Table 2 shows the limits of coal remainders by month for each year. As we see, the fluctuations are so considerable that, of course, it is very difficult to mechanize coal transport over the entire storage-yard area by primitive, low-capacity mechanisms.

Before the idea arose of open bunkering in the pits of a scraper storage yard, the “Vostokshakhtoproekt” trust did extensive work on the selection and development of various variants of schemes for equipping loading-and-storage installations [2].

In the present case, technical thought proceeded in the direction of making full use of the own weight of the mineral; i.e., just as in bunkers, coal, with the aid of other engineering structures, was to be kept in a state of complete readiness for gravity discharge. The capacity of such structures had to be immeasurably greater than that of ordinary railway bunkers. To implement this idea, a type of loading-and-storage structure was developed which is an open trestle storage yard, beneath which there is a tunnel for railway cars. In the vault, along the line where the floor of the storage yard meets the vault, loading hatches are arranged at a certain distance from one another; these are also provided in the crown of the vault in order to reduce the “dead” spaces in the storage yard. Loading of the storage yard is carried out in the usual way—by a belt conveyor with a discharge carriage. Loading of the cars is performed in the tunnel, into which a train is brought.

It should be noted that this type of loading-and-storage structure could be applied only in special cases, under appropriate terrain conditions that make it possible conveniently to link the tunnel tracks with the approach tracks. In terms of capital costs, the tunnel type of loading-and-storage structure is approximately 17% more expensive than the equipment of the second scheme (bunkers with scraper storage yards). In operating costs, on the contrary, the tunnel type is more advantageous. If both these and other costs are taken into account and charged to one ton of coal mined, the difference comes out in favor of the tunnel type, approximately, by 10%. It is also necessary to reckon with the fact that the tunnel type of loading-and-storage structure, in addition to the large initial costs and the special conditions required for its application, also entails a deterioration of the working conditions of loading workers owing to heavy dust formation during loading.

Another type—silo storage structures with loading railway hoppers—was also worked out theoretically by the “Vostokshakhtoproekt” trust. Loading of railway cars here was carried out by belt conveyors through loading hoppers, the capacity of which was calculated for the dispatch of heavy trainloads. The capacity of each silo was intended to be brought up to 2,500 tons. If the capital costs for the construction of silo-type loading-and-storage devices are referred to one ton of useful capacity, then they are, approximately, 2–3 times cheaper than the second scheme (bunkers with scraper storage yards).

Thus, the basic idea of open bunkerization consists, in essence, in combining the loading and storage links in a single structure. This is vividly illustrated for us by the tunnel type of structure.

As is known, sector scraper warehouses were adopted as the basic type in the first years of mine construction, when equipping loading-and-storage installations. But at mines their purpose was defined only as emergency in character, and therefore their capacity and the productivity of the transport equipment were strictly limited. The bunker pits of a sector scraper warehouse were initially used in very limited dimensions; in essence, in individual cases they constituted

Figure 4

one-sided trays, above which the primary cones of coal were located. Subsequently, because under the conditions of dispatching trains it was necessary to have a sufficient quantity of coal prepared for a self-flowing state, the bunker pits began to be increased in volume. Below we give diagrams of primary cones in the bunker pits of a scraper warehouse (Fig. 4) and the capacity of the cones in cubic meters (Table 3), reduced to the state of coal self-flow.

Table 3

Above the bunker pits it is possible to have a sufficient quantity of coal prepared for loading into trains. Consequently, from the standpoint of novelty in the use of equipment, open bunkerization gives nothing; but this scheme of equipping loading-and-storage installations establishes an entirely clear new view of the complex and defines its principal task—the continuation of the production process of processing the mineral.

Open bunkerization

The scheme of open bunkerization, in the form in which it has been implemented in practice at some new large mines of Kuzbass, is shown in Fig. 5. Open bunkerization consists of a powerful scraper warehouse and loading hoppers. In the scraper warehouse a number of sectors is provided...

corresponding to the grades of coal worked by the mine. The arrangement of the transport mechanisms from the mine shaft to the storage yard and from the storage yard makes it possible to provide for the loading of coal to consumers in the most varied combinations.

Open bunkering may be carried out in two variants:

1) all the coal of the mine passes through the bunker pits of the scraper storage yard;
2) part of the coal, determined by the total idle time of cars under loading during the day, bypassing the storage yard, goes directly through the chutes into the routes.

The expediency of applying one variant or the other may be established by the capital costs for equipment and by the technological requirements with respect to coal quality. As techno-economic calculations for both variants have shown, the second is more complicated and somewhat more expensive, but in return a portion of the coal, on the order of 30%, avoids crushing due to an unnecessary rehandling operation. But if the mine produces not one grade of coal but several, then the quantity of coal not subjected to unnecessary degradation may be still smaller owing to the noncoincidence of the grades coming from current production and those loaded into a route from the storage yard. And if one further takes into account that in the future railway transport will move toward reducing the time standards for loading operations, then the advantage will undoubtedly be on the side of the second variant.

Fig. 5

The loading capacity of the first type of open bunkering is determined mainly by the capacity of the bunker pits of the scraper storage yard, since in this case the loading chutes above the railway tracks have a very limited capacity (one chute about 50 tons), intended for the event of any delays during loading and for removing coal from the conveyor when it is stopped or when switching the transport branch to another grade of coal.

Thus, the quantity of coal located in the bunker pit and above it, in the form of the so-called primary cone, will depend on the diameter of the pit, assuming the angle of inclination of its wall for coal to be a constant value. In addition, if there is coal in the stockpile, a certain part of it, adjacent to the primary cone, will flow by gravity, at the angle of natural repose, into the bunker pit, increasing the total amount of coal prepared for loading (Fig. 6). The scraper installation will also be able, in advance, i.e.

Fig. 6

before the delivery of railway cars for loading, to pull up closer to the primary cones the required quantity of coal; therefore the scraper-hauling length during loading will be small, within limits of up to 30 m. Thus, the total aggregate quantity of coal that can be shipped into a train will consist of four components: a) the capacity of the loading hoppers; b) the capacity of the bunker pits and primary cones; c) the part of the stockpiles adjacent to the primary cones; d) the productivity of the scraper installation.

Fig. 7

The productivity of a scraper installation, as is known, depends chiefly on the capacity of the scraper and on the length of scraping. For the most common types of scraper winches, productivity may be determined from the diagram (Fig. 7).

For greater clarity, we present Table 4 for the loading capacity of the complex of the open-bunkering scheme of the first type, calculated for various mine capacities.

Table 4

It follows from this table that the total quantity of coal brought into a state suitable for possible loading by gravity flow, taking into account the operation of scraper installations, is, generally speaking, under certain conditions,^1 more than sufficient for loading heavy routes. But in cases where a mine produces not one grade of coal but several, it may turn out that there is insufficient prepared coal for the route.

Let us consider a case in which a mine produces 2 or 3 grades of coal that are not subject to mixing, on the condition that a route is supplied for loading during such a period of time when the mine is producing a grade of coal other than the one with which the route must be loaded. Let us assume that each sector of the stockpile is served by an independent scraper installation.

For a mine with an output of 600 thousand t per year, we shall have:

1. Capacity of the primary cone: 300 t.
2. Capacity of the loading hoppers: 100 t.
3. Capacity of the adjacent part of the stack: 150 t.
4. Two-hour productivity of a scraper installation with an SL-K41 winch, with a scraper capacity of 2 t and a scraping length of 30 m: 240 t.

Total: 790 t.

If we take a mine with an output of more than 1000 thousand t per year, then, correspondingly, under the same conditions we shall have:

1. Capacity of the primary cone: 630 t.
2. Capacity of the loading hoppers: 100 t.
3. Capacity of the adjacent part of the stack: 330 t.
4. Two-hour productivity of a scraper installation with an SL-165 winch, with a scraper capacity of 4 t and a scraping length of 30 m: 560 t.

Total: 1620 t.

Thus, from the examples given it is evident that there is not enough prepared coal for loading routes, since even at the present time the weight of a dispatch route is greater. It is also necessary to bear in mind the tendency toward a steady increase in the weight of dispatch routes.

Consequently, open bunkering of the first type, even under favorable conditions, in a number of cases cannot satisfy all the requirements of route formation, not to mention that various malfunctions and

^1 The case of using more than one bunker pit for one grade of coal.

delays in the operation of transport mechanisms (feeders, conveyors, scraper installations).

Of course, we must approach the evaluation of the open-bunkering scheme for the equipment of loading-and-storage facilities objectively. It is impossible, naturally, to deny that this solution is sound and progressive, but it is far from final, owing to a whole series of shortcomings inherent in it, in addition to those mentioned above, and of a technological nature, with respect to the quality of the mineral. Thus, for example, open bunkering in general, in our opinion, cannot be recommended for mines dispatching their output to consumers by grades—by classes—since in this case it is necessary to supplement the loading-and-storage facilities with sorting equipment. Sorting installations, as is known, are arranged directly above the loading structures, and in this case bunkers best meet the requirements.

Thus, the equipping of loading-and-storage facilities according to an open-bunkering scheme has not proved to be universal also because suitable ground conditions for the construction of bunker pits could not always be found (as, for example, the ground conditions of the Bureya district in the Far East).

Consequently, the development of loading-and-storage facilities has all along proceeded along the path of searching for ever newer schemes that ensure, above all, the normal operation of mines in shipping coal under any operating regime of railway transport in supplying cars.

In recent years, preparation plants and sorting installations have been constructed intensively at the mines of Kuzbass. The considered schemes for equipping loading-and-storage facilities proved not to be organically connected within the general technological complex of the surface; therefore, at present they are undergoing fundamental reconstruction.

The new schemes of the technological complex of mine surfaces provide for a combination of powerful scraper storage yards with a large capacity of bunker and silo structures, linked with one another by a transport branch, ensuring the shipment of cleaned coal to consumers separately by brands and grades.

Figure 8 presents one of the new schemes of the technological complex of mine surfaces. The mine has an annual output of 1,800 thousand tons. It produces three brands of coal: KZh, PU, and SS, in the following percentage ratio: KZh—40%, PU—25%, and SS—35%. The KZh and PU brands are cleaned, while SS, in addition, is sorted into 4 grades. The total capacity of the scraper storage yard is over 100 thousand tons; the loading bunkers have 12 sections with a total capacity of 2.5 thousand tons and six silos of 2.5 thousand tons.

As can be seen from the figure cited, the new scheme of the surface technological complex is characterized by bulky structures and complex transport-mechanical equipment. Therefore, the cost of such a complex is many times higher than the schemes of equipping loading-and-storage facilities that we have considered.

In developing the surface technological complex of mines for one of the new deposits, the Vostokshakhtoproekt trust, for the first stage of the deposits, provides for a single surface technological complex for several adits at each deposit.

In the surface technological complex for the mines of the first stage of construction, dry preparation with high plant productivity is provided for each deposit. For storing coal, powerful scraper storage yards of eight sections have been adopted, with a total capacity of up to 80,000 tons. Coal loading is adopted in heavy-weight trains from bunkers with a capacity of more than 2,000 tons.

Plan 6.

Visible labels in the drawing:

• Coal storage yard, OS grade, capacity 60,000 t
• Coal storage yard, K grade, capacity [[unclear: 30,000 or 90,000]] t
• Intermediate coal storage yard, capacity 20,000 t
• Coal storage yard, SS grade, capacity 35,000 t
• Coal storage yard, [[unclear: grade]], capacity 60,000 t
• Coal storage yard, [[unclear: grade]], capacity [[unclear]] t
• [[unclear: loading-boom building]]
• Loading bunker
• Screening
• Bunker [[unclear: screenings and sorting]]
• Preparation plant
• Conveyor to the boiler house
• Transporter to [[unclear: the boiler house]]

Visible dimensions and numerical notations:

• 7,000
• 12,000
• 12,000
• 15,000
• 16,000
• 17,780
• 20,000
• 29,000
• 30,000
• 30,000
• 35,000
• 35,520
• 44,000
• 49,000
• 49,200
• 49,540
• 60,000
• 65,000
• 68,000
• 79,400
• 88,500
• 117,540

Thus, from the examples given, it is evident that the technological complex on the surface of mines is essentially turning into an independent enterprise, possessing specialized equipment and its own staff of engineering and technical personnel.

It seems to us that already at the present stage of development of the surface technological complex, the question has matured of setting it apart as an independent technical enterprise, intermediate between the producing and the consuming industries. This is also necessary in order not to distract the attention of workers in the coal industry from their principal task—the extraction of the mineral.

The economic assessment of mine-surface equipment may be carried out by a relative comparison of capital expenditures, expressed as percentages, for the separate types of work involved in the construction of mines as a whole.

Capital expenditures on mine-surface equipment depend on many factors, both technical and economic. Technical factors in the structure of capital investments, generally speaking, are of primary importance, since within the conditions of a single coal basin and during the period of construction, the economic factors may be regarded as quantities that are relatively close to constant. Thus, for example, in the conditions of the Kuznetsk Basin, the cost of construction materials and electromechanical equipment, as well as wages of workers in industrial construction, differ little from district to district.

Thus, it may be considered that, in the main, capital expenditures on surface equipment are directly dependent on mine capacity and on the complexity of the equipment of the surface technological complex.

Capital expenditures for the construction and equipment of the surface of mines consist of the following items:

1. Mining-engineering buildings and structures.
2. Transport structures.
3. Electromechanical equipment of buildings and structures.
4. Lighting, heating, and sewerage.

It should be noted that the electromechanical equipment of certain mining-engineering buildings and structures is reflected in production estimates under general expenditure items—electromechanical equipment of mines as a whole; for example, the equipment of preparation-plant buildings, hoisting equipment, lighting, power installations, and the network. Therefore, in order to reflect more correctly the comparative cost of mine-surface equipment, we consider it necessary first to present the structure of capital investments according to the above-mentioned expenditure items.

When considering the item “Mining-engineering buildings and structures” for the construction of several dozen mines in the Donets Basin [3], capital expenditures fluctuate within very broad limits—from 6 to 30% of total capital investments for mine construction as a whole. In Kuzbass, this same expenditure item, as examined by us for eight mines built during the first two five-year plans, gives a figure with fluctuations within the range of 15–25%. Mines of the new Stalin five-year plan give figures of a somewhat different order. Thus, for the new mines of Kuzbass (estimates were examined for 25 mines designed in 1945–46 and 1947), of varying capacity, the item “Construction of buildings and structures” amounts to from 18 to 20%, and for reconstructed mines even 21%.

Thus, it may be considered that the erection of mining-engineering buildings and structures is one of the major items of capital investment in mine-surface equipment.

Considering the item “Transport structures” according to the same data for the mines of Donbass, we see that expenditures fluctuated within the range of 0.9–17%, while for Kuzbass mines built during the first two five-year plans they were 3.5–11%. Mines of the new five-year plan give an average figure of about 3.5%. Capital investments for

electromechanical equipment of buildings and structures is somewhat more difficult to identify, but nevertheless, for characterization we give average comparative data in percent, calculated for one and a half dozen mines of the Donets Basin. If all electromechanical equipment for mines as a whole is taken as 100%, then the cost of equipment for above-mine buildings amounted to 3%, transport equipment of loading-and-storage installations—13%, hoisting—21%. Haulage in the mine amounted to 19%, and mechanization of cutting—10%.

On the basis of the careful study we have carried out of estimates for Kuzbass mines, it may be considered that capital expenditures on electromechanical equipment of buildings and structures amount on average to up to 50% of the total expenditures on electromechanical equipment as a whole. As for the last item of expenditure, in total capital investments it constitutes an insignificant percentage: thus, for Kuzbass mines, from 1 to 2%. Below we give Tables 5 and 6, in which the structure of capital investments is given as percentages of the full cost of mine construction by individual items of expenditure. Table 5 presents mines built during the first two Stalin five-year plans according to data from the general estimates of “Vostokshakhtoproekt.” It should be noted that most of the mines shown in the table underwent reconstruction after being put into operation. In particular, the technological complexes of the surface were supplemented by washing plants and sorting installations. Mineral stockpiles were enlarged and new loading structures were erected.

Table 5

Considering the data of Table 6, it may be noted that the total cost of surface equipment for mines of the new Stalin five-year plan is incomparably higher. In this table there is no general item of expenditure for surface equipment, but it can be easily determined by adding the percentages of columns 4 and 5 with the addition of approximately half of column 3. Thus, the share of capital expenditures on surface equipment for mines of the new Stalin five-year plan has increased, owing to the greater complexity of the technological complex, and amounts on average to up to 35%, and in individual cases even higher, as, for example, the new mine A, for which they constitute up to 40% of the total cost of capital investments for industrial construction.

The cost of loading-and-storage installations of Kuzbass mines built during the first two Stalin five-year plans amounted, in total capital investments, to from 6 to 8% and to up to 32% of the capital expenditures on surface equipment. Thus, for example, for mine V (Table 5) the cost of equipment for loading-and-storage installations according to the design amounted to 1/3, and for mine B (the same table) 1/4 of the capital expenditures on surface equipment of these mines.

Table 6

The cost of the equipment of the technological complexes on the surface of new mines (Fig. 8) has increased significantly, owing to the inclusion in the complexes of preparation plants, sorting facilities, and the expansion of loading-and-storage structures. Thus, according to the 1947 design for the new mine A (Table 6), the cost of only the structures and equipment of the preparation plant and sorting facilities amounts to 6.4% of all capital investments in the industrial construction of the mine. Loading-and-storage structures (bunkers, silos, timbering-material warehouses, transport galleries, loading station, etc.) constitute more than 14% of total costs. Thus, the costs under the new schemes of technological complexes on the surface of mines amount to more than 20% of all capital costs for the industrial construction of mines.

The technological complexes on the surface of new Kuzbass mines, already at the present stage of development, constitute a new technical enterprise—

… a system that is entirely organically unrelated to the technology of extracting the mineral. Subsequently, owing to the inevitable demands of industrial consumers, the technological complexes must be supplemented with briquetting plants and coal-mixing stations. In the final analysis, the state task consists in striving to increase the efficiency of fuel use and to maneuver fuel stocks on the basis of replacing the coals of one district with the coals of another district, even of the same conditional grade. The individual surface technological complex at each mine is not capable of resolving the entire range of questions connected with the qualitative processing of coals.

The development of new deposits in this respect could serve as an excellent experiment for setting apart a unified surface technological complex for the mines of the first stage of construction, with all questions connected with the efficient use of fuel being assigned to it. The unified central complex must be transferred to Uglesund, for which it is already time to have its own technical enterprise. Such an organizational and technical measure must be implemented in the interests of the coal industry and of consuming industry.

REFERENCES

1. Martynenko A. T.—Selection of the most rational types of loading-and-storage facilities for Kuzbass mines. KUZNIUI, 1944.

2. Martynenko A. T.—Paths of development of the loading-and-storage operations of Kuzbass mines. Mining Journal, No. 5, 1938.

3. Popov A. S.—Technical-economic analysis in mining engineering, 1932.

4. Elandev Yu. V.—Comprehensive mechanization of the loading-and-storage operations of stone-coal mines according to the open-bunkering scheme. Journal Coal, No. 10, 1940.

1. A case of irregular “batch-like” supply of cars. ↩