A Rational Type of Hoisting Machine for Cargo Hoisting Installations in Kuzbass Mines

(For discussion)

I. K. Khrustalev

(Presented by the scientific seminar of the Mining-Mechanical Faculty of TPI)

Standardization of domestic hoisting machines was begun in 1931. The State Institute of Norms and Standards of the Coal Industry (GINSKUP), at the first conference on the standardization of mining equipment in February 1931, for the first time outlined a standard series of cylindrical drums for mine hoisting machines. In 1933 the Central Bureau of Standards of the Coal Industry (TsBSKUP), which replaced GINSKUP, proposed a refined standard. The further development of standardization of hoisting machines proceeded by refining this first standard series.

The following conditions were made the basis of the standard for hoisting machines:

1. The minimum ratio of the diameters of the drum and the rope shall be not less than eighty.

2. The minimum number of standard drums differing in their dimensions.

3. The winding surfaces of individual drums must not overlap one another, i.e., there must not be two drums of different sizes with identical winding surfaces.

4. The temporary tensile strength of the rope wires was taken as

\[ \sigma_b = 150 \div 160 \ \text{kg}/\text{mm}^2 . \]

As a result of the development and refinement of the standard, at present plants of heavy and coal-machine building manufacture the following double-drum hoisting machines: \(2 \times 2\), \(5 \times 1\); \(2 \times 2\), \(5 \times 1{,}2\); \(2 \times 3 \times 1{,}215\); \(2 \times 3 \times 1{,}26\); \(2 \times 3 \times 1{,}5\); \(2 \times 3{,}5 \times 1{,}5\); \(2 \times 4 \times 1{,}7\); \(2 \times 5 \times 1{,}7\); \(2 \times 5 \times 2{,}3\); \(2 \times 6 \times 2{,}4\).

The fields of application of hoisting machines of the given standard series are shown in Figs. 1 and 2¹.

An analysis of the field of application of the standard series of double-drum machines shows that it has substantial shortcomings, especially when machines of this series are used for shallow mines.

We analyzed hoisting machines at 38 hoisting installations in Kuzbass mines and in several other basins with a hoisting height of up to 400 m. The total winding surface of these hoisting machines \((\pi \times D_b \times B_b)\)

amounts to 715.75 m²; the winding surface occupied by the rope is 463.02 m², i.e., only 61% is usefully employed, while 39% of the winding surface (or of the drum width) of these hoisting machines rotates idly and is not used at all.

Fig. 1. Range of application of hoisting machines of the existing standard series
(skip hoisting)

This brief calculation shows that the machines of the standard series do not meet the basic requirement of the Party and the government for economy, and this alone already suggests the need to revise the standard for machines and to create an economical, most flexible standard series of machines with high strength of their elements.

Let us consider the reasons that have led to such irrational use of machines of the existing standard series.

For hoisting installations in Kuzbass, as a rule, a large output is characteristic (up to 5000 t/day and more) and a small hoisting height (up to 400 m).

The large output of hoists leads to the use of a large terminal load, which in turn leads to the use of ropes and drums with large diameters. The small hoisting height leads to the winding surface being used incompletely.

In addition, large terminal loads require the use of machines of high strength, and therefore, according to strength conditions, machines of oversized dimensions are very often adopted.

In fact, according to the conditions of winding the rope on the drum, for hoisting installations with six-ton skips it is possible to use machines with a diameter.

drum \(D_b = 3\) m (Fig. 1). However, these machines have insufficient strength, and they can be used for hoisting installations of shallow mines only with skips of 3 and 4 t capacity. For hoists with six-ton skips, however, it is necessary to use a \(2 \times 4 \times 1.7\) machine. Likewise, when three-ton skips are used, machines with a drum diameter of two meters cannot be used, and for four-ton skips—machines with \(D_b = 2.5\) m.

Fig. 2. Range of application of the existing standard series of hoisting machines (cage hoisting)

\(1—1\)—single-deck cage for a one-ton mine car; \(1—2\)—single-deck cage for a two-ton mine car; \(1—3\)—single-deck cage for a three-ton mine car; \(2—2\)—double-deck cage for a two-ton mine car; \(2—3\)—double-deck cage for a three-ton mine car; \(2—1\)—double-deck cage for a one-ton mine car.

This leads to the fact that at one of the hoisting installations of the Kemerovougol trust, according to the conditions for winding the rope onto the drum, it would have been possible to install a machine with \(D_b = 3\) m; instead, a \(2 \times 4 \times 1.7\) machine was installed, and the winding surface is used only by 31.2%. Such cases are not isolated; they occur both in Kuzbass and Donbass, as well as in other basins.

On the basis of the foregoing, we set ourselves the task of carrying out a brief analysis of the standard series of hoisting machines and of making proposals for its improvement.

It should be noted that this question is not new; it has been studied by Prof. Dr. G. M. Elanchik, Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Prof. Dr. A. S. Il’ichev, and others. In the works of the above-mentioned scholars there are corresponding proposals for improving the standard, with which we cannot fully agree, since they do not change the essence of the question.

Prof. Dr. A. S. Il’ichev, in addition to proposals for improving the standard series of double-drum machines, proposes a series of machines with one split drum. One cannot but agree that this series is economical, but its application is associated with a whole range of difficulties, such as: the complexity of the arrangement of uncoupling devices for the drum halves, the difficulty of applying drum lining, and, in the case of using a smooth steel lining, the necessity of using devices for the correct winding of the rope on the drum.

Single-drum machines with ordinary drums, for their part, create difficulties in adjusting the length of the ropes, do not permit simultaneous operation of the hoisting installation from several levels, etc., and therefore are used, as a rule, in auxiliary hoisting installations.

The simplest and most convenient in operation are double-drum hoisting machines, which at present have the widest application. They will evidently find wide application in the future as well, especially at small mine depths. Therefore, in our opinion, the creation of an economical and flexible series of double-drum hoisting machines is a primary task.

The basic conditions for such a series should be the following:

1. Flexibility and economy in the use of the standard series of hoisting machines.
2. Increased strength of the machines of this series, designed for the maximum possible load with the use of ropes and a temporary tensile strength of the wires of $\sigma_b = 180\ \text{kg}/\text{mm}^2$.
3. A minimum ratio of drum and rope diameters of not less than 80.

Proceeding from these conditions, we performed calculations and constructed curves of the dependences of the required winding surfaces on the hoisting height, the rope and drum diameters, and the capacity of the skips. The limiting hoisting height was taken as 400–500 m (Figs. 3 and 4).

In view of the fact that, under the winding conditions in this case, drum diameters greater than 4.5 m are not required for all types of skips, machines with drum diameters of 5 and 6 m are not considered by us.

The winding surfaces of machines $2 \times 3 \times 1.215$ and $2 \times 3 \times 1.26$ differ little from one another; therefore we propose that only the machine $2 \times 3 \times 1.26$ be retained in the standard.

It is necessary to retain in the standard the previously produced machine with drums $2 \times 3 \times 1$. It can be used in installations with 4-ton skips with a hoisting height up to 350 m and more, and with 6-ton skips with a hoisting height of 300 m.

It is necessary to introduce into the standard machines with drum dimensions $2 \times 3.5 \times 1.2$; $2 \times 3.5 \times 1.7$ and $2 \times 4.5 \times 1.7$. This will make it possible to create a more flexible series of machines and to use them more economically.

In revising the standard series of hoisting machines, we proceeded from the fact that in all cases the unused winding surface should not exceed 30%. On this basis, machines with the following drum dimensions are proposed: $2 \times 2.5 \times 1$; $2 \times 2.5 \times 1.2$; $2 \times 3 \times 1$; $2 \times 3 \times 1.26$; $2 \times 3 \times 1.5$; $2 \times 3.5 \times 1.2$; $2 \times 3.5 \times 1.5$; $2 \times 3.5 \times 1.7$; $2 \times 4 \times 1.7$; $2 \times 4.5 \times 1.7$.

For mine depths of up to 400 m, for all skip capacities, machines with a drum diameter greater than 4.5 m will not be required; and, with the use of two-layer rope winding on the drum, the \(2 \times 4.5 \times 1.7\) machine can serve a hoisting installation with a hoisting height of up to 1000 m.

Fig. 3. Application ranges of the proposed series of two-drum hoisting machines (skip hoisting).

For Kuzbass and similar conditions, for cargo hoists it is quite sufficient to use hoisting machines with maximum drum dimensions of \(2 \times 3.5 \times 1.7\). Calculations show that, in the absolute majority of cases, larger machines are not required even for cage hoisting installations (Figs. 3 and 4).

For servicing cage hoists in deep mines, where safety regulations permit only single-layer winding, in our opinion the machines \(2 \times 5 \times 1.7\), \(2 \times 5 \times 2.3\), and \(2 \times 6 \times 2.4\) should also be retained in the standard.

The application ranges of the machines of the proposed series are shown in Figs. 3 and 4. Table 1 gives the necessary calculated strength of the machines of the proposed series. The economy of using the machines of the proposed series is evident from Table 2.

It follows from the above that, in the case of creating machines of proper strength (Table 1), it is possible to use, instead of machines \(2 \times 4 \times 1.7\), machines with drum diameters of 3 and 3.5 m, and instead of machines \(2 \times 5 \times 1.7\), machines with drum diameters of 4.5, 4, and even 3.5 m; and this, as is clear from Table 2, gives a large saving in funds for the building and foundation. For example, the use of a \(2 \times 3.5 \times 1.7\) machine instead of \(2 \times 4 \times 1.7\) gives a saving

Fig. 4. Field of application of the proposed series of hoisting machines
(cage hoisting)

\(1\text{—}1\)—single-deck cage for a one-ton mine car; \(1\text{—}2\)—single-deck cage for a two-ton mine car; \(1\text{—}3\)—single-deck cage for a three-ton mine car; \(2\text{—}1\)—two-deck cage for a one-ton mine car; \(2\text{—}2\)—two-deck cage for a two-ton mine car; \(2\text{—}3\)—two-deck cage for a three-ton mine car.

of funds for constructing the building by 15%; the use of a \(2 \times 3.5 \times 1.5\) machine gives a saving of 20%, and the use of a \(2 \times 3 \times 1.5\) machine saves about 30% on the building. In exactly the same way, the use, instead of a \(2 \times 5 \times 1.7\) machine, of machines \(2 \times 4.5 \times 1.7\), \(2 \times 4 \times 1.7\), and \(2 \times 3.5 \times 1.7\) gives savings in expenditures for constructing the building and foundation of, respectively, 15, 25, and 30%.

Table 1

Required calculated strength of the machines in the proposed series

The use of small-size machines instead of large-size ones, in addition to what was indicated above, gives a large saving in metal for the manufacture of hoisting machines and in expenditures on hoisting machines, and also significantly reduces energy consumption. This conclusion can be drawn from a comparison of the drum weights given in Table 2.

Table 2

Capital expenditures for hoisting-machine buildings and approximate reduced drum weights

Conclusions

1. The existing series of standard hoisting machines contradicts the basic requirements of the Party and the government—the creation of durable machines with the least consumption of metal and the rational use of industrial equipment; consequently, it is uneconomical.

2. The existing standard series of machines is not flexible; it is not designed for the use of small-size machines for powerful hoisting installations of shallow mines, and therefore in these cases it is necessary to use machines with significantly oversized dimensions, which, in turn, leads not only to an increase in the cost of installations, but also to their complication.

3. On the basis of what has been said, it follows that the standard for hoisting machines is obsolete and requires revision; moreover, the new standard must be based on the principal condition—economy.

4. The proposals made in the present work for improving the standard for machines reflect the requirements of the present time and more fully ensure the condition stated above.

1. 1. In constructing the curves for the field of application of the machines, we used the method of Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Professor, Doctor A. S. Ilyichev.
   2. The temporary tensile strength of the rope wires is taken as 160 and 180 kg/mm².
   3. Standard skips for the coal industry are adopted as hoisting vessels.

   ↩