Auxiliary fan energy consumption

profile under ventilation control

strategies

Enrique Acuña, PhD

Michelle Levesque, PhD
CanmetMINING
March 2021

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the

Minister of Natural Resources, 2021.
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Natural Resources, 2019
Table of contents
 Introduction
 Background
 Methodology
 Auxiliary fan system operational point
 Energy profile, savings and discounted cash flow
 Sensitivity analysis
 Discussion of results
 Conclusions
Introduction
 Ventilation Control Systems (VCS) and Ventilation
On Demand (VOD)
 VCS deployment in underground mines
 Main fans can be equipped with Variable
Frequency Drives (VFD) to modulate mine airflow
 Main fans airflow volumes can help make the
business case to have a cost effective VFD
installation
Introduction
 Is it cost effective to implement a VFD for an
auxiliary fan?
 Unfortunately, the answer to this question is
“it depends”
 This study presents a methodology to answer
the questions and two examples to illustrate
the methodology
Background
 Mine ventilation systems are divided into
main, booster and auxiliary
 Main inputs for energy estimate:
 Mine development and production plan
 Ventilation control strategies
 This study concentrates on auxiliary fans
Background
 Auxiliary fan energy estimate and cost depends
on:
 Working face airflow requirements
 Ventilation duct system
 Fan chart and efficiency
 Use of the fan over time
 Energy price
 Airflow requirements are estimated based on
regulatory requirements (quantity and quality)
Background
 Ventilation duct systems can have different size
(diameter), length, configuration, leakage and k
(roughness) factors
 Fans can have different pressure, airflow,
efficiency curves
 Depending on the plan, fans can have different
schedules for use: all the time, during the shift or
modulated with a VFD
 The energy price can vary with time or location
Background
 A gap was identified in terms of having a
methodology that included all the variables
mentioned previously to estimate the expected
savings of energy over time with its associated
cash flow including costs, to evaluate if it is cost
effective to consider a VFD for the operation of an
underground auxiliary fan
 The following methodology is one of a number of
potential approaches that can be used
Methodology
 Auxiliary fan operational point
 Mine activities, according to mine cycle
 Equipment and personnel
 Define airflow requirements
 Two case studies for illustration only
 A development heading
 A production heading
 Methodology - Development
 A development heading example
Airflow requirement at working
Activity Equipment Duration (h) Diesel power (kW)
face (m3/s)

Clear blasted face Scoop and truck 2 485 29.1

Ground support Bolter 3 112 6.7**

Drill and load Jumbo or Loader 3 112 6.7**

Idle - 2 0 0.0

Blast and clearance - 2 0 0.0 / 29.1*

 *Blast and clearance activity 25% (one blast every 4 shifts or 2 days) , fan off 75% of the time for this activity
 ** Minimum velocity constraints not considered for this estimate, could be added depending on regulatory requirements
Methodology - Development
 Airflow requirement over time (development):
Methodology - Development
 Auxiliary system parameters (development):
 Leakage factor 10% (29.1 to 32 m3/s)
 Duct diameter 1.37 m (54 in)
 Duct length 300 m
 k factor 0.0037 kg/m3
 Density 1.2 kg/m3
 Shock losses Leq: 10% of duct length
Methodology - Production
 A production heading example
Diesel power Airflow requirement
Activity Equipment Duration (h)
(kW) at working face (m3/s)

Production
Scoop 7 265 15.9
mucking

Idle - 3 0 0.0

Blast and
- 2 0 0.0
clearance
Methodology - Production
 Airflow requirement over time (production):
Methodology - Production
 Auxiliary system parameters (production):
 Leakage factor 10% (15.9 to 17.5 m3/s)
 Duct diameter 1.22 m (48 in)
 Duct length 300 m
 k factor 0.0037 kg/m3
 Density 1.2 kg/m3
 Shock losses Leq: 10% of duct length
Methodology
 Equations:
 Static pressure drop (Atkinson)
𝐿+𝐿𝑒𝑞 ∗𝑃𝑒𝑟 𝜌
𝑃𝑠 = 𝑘 ∗ ∗ 𝑄2 ∗ 1.2 (1)
𝐴3

 Velocity pressure
𝜌∗𝑢2
𝑃𝑣 = (2)
2
Methodology - Development
 Operating point - development heading: (2.14 kPa, 32 m3/s, 75% eff)

𝑃𝑡∗𝑄
𝐹𝑃𝑜𝑤 = (3)
𝜂𝑓
Methodology - Production
 Operating point – production heading: (1.15 kPa, 17.5 m3/s, 70% eff)

𝑃𝑡∗𝑄
𝐹𝑃𝑜𝑤 = (3)
𝜂𝑓
Methodology
 Energy profile
 Savings
 Discounted cash flow
Methodology - Development
 Energy profile (energy consumption) - Development heading
 Baseline (utilization 90%, motor efficiency 90%)

𝐸 = σ𝑖 𝑀𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑖 ∗ 𝑇𝑖 (4)

Activity Duration (h) Motor power (kW) Yearly Energy (kWh)

Fan stays on all the time 12 101.5 800,124

Methodology - Development
 Energy profile (energy consumption) - Development heading
 Manual control (25%*666,770 + 75%*533,416 = 566,755 kWh)
Yearly Energy (kWh) Yearly Energy with blast
Activity Duration (h) Motor power (kW)
without blast clearance clearance (kWh)

Clear blasted face 2 101.5 133,354 133,354

Ground support 3 101.5 200,031 200,031

Drill and load 3 101.5 200,031 200,031
Idle 2 0.0 0 0
Blast clearance* 2 0.0 / 101.5 0 133,354
Total 12 - 533,416 666,770
Methodology - Development
 Energy profile (energy consumption) - Development heading
 VFD control (25%*274,872 + 75%*141,518 = 174,857 kWh)
Motor power Yearly Energy (kWh) without Yearly Energy with blast
Activity Duration (h)
(kW) blast clearance clearance (kWh)
Clear blasted
2 101.5 133,354 133,354
face

Ground support 3 2.1 4,082 4,082

Drill and load 3 2.1 4,082 4,082

Idle 2 0 0 0

Blast clearance* 2 0 / 101.5 0 133,354

Total 12 - 141,518 274,872

Methodology - Production
 Energy profile (energy consumption) - Production heading
 Baseline (utilization 90%, motor efficiency 90%)

𝐸 = σ𝑖 𝑀𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑖 ∗ 𝑇𝑖 (4)

Activity Duration (h) Motor power (kW) Yearly Energy (kWh)

Fan stays on all the time 12 31.8 251,092

Methodology - Production
 Energy profile (energy consumption) - Production heading
 Manual control (no application for VFD)

Yearly Energy
Activity Duration (h) Motor power (kW)
(kWh)

Production mucking 7 31.8 146,470

Idle 3 0.0 0

Blast clearance* 2 0.0 0

Total 12 - 146,470
Methodology - Development
 Yearly energy consumption - Development heading
 Baseline 800,124 kWh (100%)
 Manual control 566,755 kWh (29% reduction)
 VFD control 174,857 kWh (78% reduction)
 Savings estimate
 Baseline to manual: 233,370 kWh per year (37% of savings)
 Manual to VFD: 391,898 kWh per year (63% of savings)
 Baseline to VFD: 625,268 kWh per year (100% of savings)
Methodology - Development
 Discounted cash flow assumptions:
 VFD cost $40,000 CAD
 Discount rate 10% annually
 Energy price $75 CAD/MWh
 5 year period
Methodology - Development
 Discounted cash flow (Energy price $75 CAD/MWh):

Energy price $75 CAD/MWh

Year 1 2 3 4 5

Baseline to VFD $6,268.25 $45,024.50 $80,257.46 $112,287.42 $141,405.57

Manual to VFD -$9,643.32 $14,647.88 $36,730.78 $56,806.15 $75,056.49

Methodology - Development
 Sensitivity analysis
 Discounted cash flow (Energy price $25 CAD/MWh):
Energy price $25 CAD/MWh

Year 1 2 3 4 5

Baseline to VFD -$22,153.01 -$9,234.26 $2,510.06 $13,186.72 $22,892.77

Manual to VFD -$27,456.86 -$19,359.80 -$11,998.83 -$5,307.04 $776.40

Methodology - Development
 Sensitivity analysis
 Discounted cash flow (Energy price $125 CAD/MWh):
Energy price $125 CAD/MWh

Year 1 2 3 4 5

Baseline to VFD $34,689.50 $99,283.26 $158,004.86 $211,388.13 $259,918.38

Manual to VFD $8,170.22 $48,655.55 $85,460.40 $118,919.34 $149,336.57

Methodology
 Sensitivity analysis
 Leakage factor
 Poor maintenance generates higher or increased leakage as compared to
well maintained systems
 VFD savings are only realized when ventilation ducts have low leakage
 Leakage energy cost may be used to justify a dedicated maintenance crew
for ventilation ducts
 Operator factor
 Can turn fans on/off and set RPMs in VFD (in theory but requires training,
discipline and supervision)
 Ventilation control system can be considered as an alternative
Discussion of results
 Savings are a function of the opportunity to turn off
the fan or modulate the airflow volume or both.
 The more headings are supplied by the same fan,
then the less savings can be expected
 Long headings can offer additional opportunities
for savings until reaching the most demanding
case
 The best approach (on/off or VFD) has to be
determined based on the application
Discussion of results
 Measuring power will become a need to
validate savings over time
 Costs (CAPEX and OPEX) have to be
assessed by geographical location
 Energy prices were considered constant, but
they could vary over time, which could be an
additional opportunity for savings, with a
more complex management regime
Conclusions
 The answer to the cost effectiveness of the VFD
remains within the “it depends” domain
 A methodology with examples has been provided
to answer the question
 Examples showed that VFD could be beneficial in
some applications, in particular with high airflow
variability
 Each mine site has to develop the analysis and
answer the question based on their cost reality
Contact information
 CanmetMINING:
 Enrique Acuña – enrique.acuna-duhart@canada.ca
 Michelle Levesque – michelle.levesque@canada.ca
Questions?
 Enrique Acuña, PhD
Michelle Levesque, PhD
CanmetMINING
March 2021

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the

Minister of Natural Resources, 2021.