Method Of Academic Mining Engineering Research

University research in the U.S. consists of three components; faculty, funding, and graduate students or postdoctorals. Individual faculty is the unit area of research that is not limited, although faculty normally performs research in their areas of expertise. Faculty can and often do join with other faculty in multidisciplinary research. Faculty research achievements or reputation reflects the standing of the program and university. Therefore, research is highly encouraged and regarded within the university community. Graduate students are the work force of faculty research and doctoral students are preferred for high-quality products. The federal government provides the majority of funding sources, with the remainder coming from industry, state government and others. Compared with other engineering majors, the mining engineering programs in the U.S. are unique in that they: ? Are small in terms of the number of programs, and number of faculty and students in each program. ? Serve a single industry (i.e., mining) and are thus cyclic, reflecting the up and down economic state of the mineral industries. Enrollment statistics during the past 70 years show that a cycle consists of approximately 30 years with the first 10 years up, followed by 20 years down. ? Have curriculum designed to emphasize and thus serve for either the coal, hardrock or industrial minerals industries. These unique features make mining engineering programs hard to manage in university environments. Funding for mining research has relied primarily on the federal government, i.e., the former U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) and currently the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The mining industry does not directly perform, nor sponsor research projects. Federal funding provides primarily in-house research. In the last four decades, federal extramural funding was only available when Congress appropriated extra funding in response to mine disasters. For instance, a string of coal mine explosions in the mid to late 1960s prompted Congress to enact the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. It provided massive research funding from 1970 to 1983 covering all mining-related subject areas. From 1984 to 1995, federal extramural research funding was minimal, through two generic mineral technology research centers for selected mining engineering programs. In 1995, Congress closed the USBM and transferred the health and safety of miners program to NIOSH. Federally-funded extra-mural research practically stopped from 1995 to 2006. In 2006 and 2007, in response to a series of disasters, including those at Sago, Aracoma, Darby and Crandall Canyon, Congress again appropriated funding for short-term re-search in selected subjected areas such as underground tracking and communication, mine seal and ventilation, and deep cover pillar extraction. Therefore, to develop a meaningful academic mining research program during the past three decades, funding needed to be drawn from other sources such as the mining industries. A ?meaningful? program requires a sufficient amount of consistent funding in order to produce effective results. A review of federally funded extramural research pro-grams shows that a great majority of contractors/grantees are private entities, involving few mining engineering faculty. This, in part, is due to the fact that mining engineering involves so many different subjects. Therefore, a small mining engineering program can only have resources to cover teaching in the core subject areas (i.e., extraction, ground control, ventilation and material handling), at best. In this respect, a successful and meaningful academic mining re-search effort requires strong supporting programs such as geology/geophysics, structural (applied) mechanics, material sciences, compute/software application, etc. Therefore, academic mining research had to rely on private sources such as coal companies, in the author?s case, for sustained funding in the past three decades. Relying on funding from coal companies presents several problems. The projects were small and considered routine consulting projects requiring practical answers in a very short time frame. This is not really suitable for academic research, for which the major goal of research is the training of graduate students. These short-term projects vary with time and mines, most of which are driven by U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) or U.S. Office of Surface Mining (OSM) regulations. So sustained funding under such condition requires broad experience of coal mining operations, which is also not well-aligned for academic research where faculty tends to specialize in a narrow field. Consequently, under such a funding environment, it is important to keep in mind how to develop long-term academic research objectives from conducting small short-term consulting projects that require quick solutions. In other words, how to look beyond the quick answers and to develop broader and more fundamental theories applicable to other situations that advance the-state-of-the-art. In order to achieve this objective, faculty must act as the connecting link because graduate students come and go. Faculty must know the detail of each project such that they know what are the important unsolved problems, what to assign to specific graduate students and how to guide the next group of graduate students to continue the development and advance the mining science. Under such funding environments, the most effective way to conduct academic mining research and ensure quality products is to maintain a research group consisting of postdoctoral, PhD, and MS students of various rankings such that the senior ranks can assist in guiding the junior ranks, especially the senior PhD students who are experts in their dissertation research areas. A weekly meeting should be scheduled for the group in which problems encountered in the research are discussed or individuals take turns presenting the progress of their projects. During each meeting, the importance of open discussion on scientific issues must be emphasized. Thus, opinions are encouraged, debated, and rejected or accepted. Students are encouraged to listen to and analyze other points of view. In addition to training of this thought process, the meeting also helps identify the strengths and weakness of each individual. As the subject of research expands over time, the group?s and, thus, the faculty?s research experience broadens. With this approach, companies can get the quick answer they desire from expert research experience and the faculty can engage in meaningful applied and basic research that is most relevant to routine mine operations. The end result is that companies will have a high regard for academic mining research.