Comparison of a Hoisting System and Vertical

Conveyor for Shallow Shafts

Eric Boutin
Nordmin Engineering Ltd., Thunder Bay, ON, Canada

Steve K. Nix
Joy Global Inc., Winfield, AL, USA

ABSTRACT
Shallow shafts or winzes are frequently used when accessing shallow deposits or when extend-
ing a mine with a shallow dip angle ore body. These applications can benefit from the lower
capital cost and operating simplicity of a high angle conveyor when compared to a conven-
tional skip loading system. These systems have become popular in removing muck for tunnel-
ing projects but are still rare in conventional underground mining applications. This paper will
provide the operating requirements, the maximum practical single lift and necessary infra-
structure for a vertical conveyor. It will also evaluate the capital cost, and installation schedule
for a 4500 tonne per day installation in a North American market for this kind of installation.
The simplest possible hoisting system is considered to provide the reader with an example of
where a vertical conveyor can be economically applied.

INTRODUCTION
With the higher pressure on mine owners to generate income earlier in a project, it has become
popular to use truck haulage and ramps for shallower mining projects. Though ramps can be
more efficient earlier on in the mine life of these installations, the haulage costs increases with
depth. In these cases vertical transportation systems can significantly reduce operating costs
and increase profits. Two approaches will be considered in this paper: high angle conveyors
and raise bored shaft hoisting, and compare their strengths and weaknesses. The application
that will be used for comparison is a 4,500 t/d (4,960 stpd) installation with a 500 m (1,640 ft)
lift distance. The rock conditions are assumed to be such that no special ground support con-
ditions are required as this would affect the design of both types of systems.
To simplify the evaluation, the capital cost estimates will include only system differences
so a comparable cost is developed, and for activities on the installation timeline, only where the
differences affect the construction schedule. Also, activities will be included in the timeline to
allow a true construction time comparison. Bins are excluded from the estimates and sched-
ules since they are common to both systems.
The hoisting system considered is a double drum hoist with a skip/skip configuration.
A friction hoist was not considered for this application because of the number of ropes that
would have to be handled underground with the similar power requirements did not give a

367
368 INCLINE TRANSPORT: HOIST, CONVEYOR, AND TRUCK

Raise
Climber
Mast

Raise
Climber
Platform

Conveyor Raise Hoisting Raise

Figure 1.  Conveyor and hoist raise plans

friction hoist an advantage in capital or operating cost in this application. The vertical high
angle conveyor included in this study is designed by Joy Global Inc. The Joy “sandwich belt”
system has been successfully used in a variety of commercial applications, conveying a wide
range of materials. The width of the belt is based on the largest lump size and includes fully
equalized pressing mechanisms to ensure good containment of material between the two belts.
For all approaches the same material properties were used, namely: hard rock with an
in-situ density of 2.5 t/m3 (155 lbs/ft3). The same density was used regardless of particle size
to simplify the overall comparison; moisture content was also neglected for the same reason.
Conveyor estimates included the installation of a jaw crusher since it is necessary for proper
material sizing while it is possible to skip larger sized particle material at this tonnage rate with
multiple rock breakers with grizzlies.

VERTICAL TRANSPORTATION SHAFT

For both systems a raise bored shaft has been included since it is usually the least expensive
method in a mine with shaft bottom access. The schedule is also fairly short to excavate with
a conservatively estimated 3 m/d advance rate including the final ground support installation.
The shaft is not lined, only rock bolted to ensure stability. The shaft diameters are 5 m for a con-
veyor and 4 m for the skipping arrangement. The advance rates for both diameters are similar,
with a higher waste disposal rate required for the conveyor option.
This shaft will maintain sufficient cross-section to allow some ventilation flow to continue
with either hoisting option but not enough to be the only ventilation path for a full-fledged
mining effort.
The cross-sections for the options are illustrated in Figure 1.

HOISTING SYSTEM
The hoisting system is comprised of a pair of 7.25 t skips suspended in a 4m shaft with 32 mm
(1¼") triangular stranded ropes to meet regulatory requirements. The shaft is equipped with
rigid guides to allow the shaft to be as small as possible since a rope guided conveyance required
greater clearances. The hoist is a 3.05 m (10 ft) diameter double drum with parallel grooving
 COMPARISON OF A HOISTING SYSTEM AND VERTICAL CONVEYOR 369

Figure 2.  Skip dump arrangement

allowing for the smallest drum possible for transport underground. The rope to drum ratio of
80:1 is the minimum allowed by Ontario regulations for production hoisting. The minimum
drum face width is estimated to be 1400 mm (55"). The hoist is fabricated in modules for effec-
tive underground transportation. The hoist is operating at 12.8 m/s (2500 fpm) to allow for
future production increase and flexibility in guide accuracy installation.
The hoist requires a drive of 1300 kW (1800 hp) with an external ventilating fan, which
would be necessary for a deep mine installation and to reduce the total connected electric load.
The included drive type is an AC drive to help reduce possible end-of-line power issues.
The upper shaft arrangement is illustrated in Figure 2. This arrangement was selected
to provide an easier excavation with minimum raise excavations. The dump can be a con-
ventional scroll or a hydraulically actuated dump, if excavation costs are great. The estimate
includes a conventional scroll dump.
With a hoisting system, there needs to be a loading pocket to feed the skips. The installa-
tion includes a pair of loading flasks fed by a single chute with a vibratory feeder to properly
load the belt. The chute is equipped with an in-line chute that includes a chain gate to help
meter the flow of material and an arc gate to shut off the flow entirely. The chute loads a vibra-
tory feeder that loads the conveyor evenly to a flask to provide a metered amount of material
to the skips. This portion of the system is illustrated in Figure 3.

CONVEYOR SYSTEM
The high angle conveyor system employs two smooth surface rubber belts that sandwich the
conveyed material. Additional hugging pressure is applied to the belt via fully-equalized press-
ing mechanisms which develop sufficient friction at the material-to-belt and materal-to-mate-
rial interface to prevent sliding back at the design conveying angle. Ample belt edge distance
assures a sealed material package during operation. See Figure 4.
The multi-flight system consists of two separate “C” shaped high angle conveyors operat-
ing in series, each with a lift of 260m (850 ft) running up offset 5m (16 ft) diameter raise-bored
370 INCLINE TRANSPORT: HOIST, CONVEYOR, AND TRUCK

Figure 3.  Lower shaft arrangement

Figure 4.  Typical conveyor section

shafts. A transfer point is located halfway up the shaft to allow material transfer from one con-
veyor to the other, as shown in Figure 5. In our evalutation we have included separate raises for
each conveyor to improve the construction schedule.
There is a rack and pinion design traveling platform to allow full access along the length of
each conveyor for equipment maintenance and inspection. This same platform would allow for
both personnel and component transport between levels and as well as other service functions.
Each high angle conveyor incorporates a dual 300 kW (400 hp) drive (one drive located on
the bottom belt discharge pulley and one located on the top belt discharge pulley) to operate
the 1.8m (72in) conveyor at a belt speed of 1.3m/s (250 fpm). The system includes backstops
to prevent reversing of the belts, while the conveyor is stopped under load and variable speed
drives to ensure a smooth, soft start of the belts without introducing excessive spikes or shock
loads to the system.
The use of standard belt conveyor equipment and hardware, (i.e., drives, idlers, belts, pul-
leys, belt cleaners, electrical controls, safety devices and hugging roll sets) means interchange-
ability of components as well as fast delivery of replacement parts. The only item not used
on conventional conveyors is the fully equalized pressing module which provides hugging
pressure to prevent material slide back in the vertical incline sections. Carrying idlers and
return idlers are of mine duty construction running in a structural frame that is ground and
 COMPARISON OF A HOISTING SYSTEM AND VERTICAL CONVEYOR 371

Figure 5.  Vertical conveyor schematic

wall supported. Incorporating conventional conveyor hardware in the design provides a very
reliable, low maintenance system with demonstrated high availability.
The Joy High Angle Conveyor system can handle lumpy materials because the belt sand-
wich design conforms to the natural cross-section. Since maximum lump size is in direct rela-
tion to belt width, a crusher and grizzly are utilized to ensure proper operation.
However, the grizzly and rock breaker is not included in the details of this estimate since
they would be required for both types of systems. The crusher is a double toggle jaw crusher
fed by a vibrating grizzly through an ore pass configured to provide a minus 150mm (6") mate-
rial. There is an accelerator conveyor included in the system to match the belt speed of the high
angle conveyor. This reduces belt wear in the loading area and allows room for installation of
a magnet for foreign metal removal, if required. The overall system is schematically illustrated
in Figure 6.

DIFFERENTIAL CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

The cost estimate was assembled using budgetary quotes, recent unit pricing and escalated his-
torical pricing in Canadian dollars. These cost estimates are for comparison only and should
not be used for project planning without a thorough review to ensure that local conditions
and market variations are taken into account. Of course there are a number of ways to execute
these projects that would definitely affect the actual project cost. In this comparison the exca-
vation unit costs are identical with general excavation of $327/m3 ($9.26/ft3) including blast,
support and haul for labor and materials. Ramp cost is $4,500/m ($1,372/ft) including blast,
support and haul for labor and materials on a 5.5m × 5.5m (17ft × 17ft) section. Vertical bin
excavations are estimated at $250/m3 ($7.08/ft3) all inclusive.
372 INCLINE TRANSPORT: HOIST, CONVEYOR, AND TRUCK

The capital cost breakdown for both options are listed in Table 1. The cost categories are:

77 The loading pocket includes all structural steel, excavation and mechanical compo-
nents but excludes ventilation and electrical costs. The power and control costs are
included under general costs. This installation is only required in the hoisting option.
77 The shaft costs are for the raise bore installation in the vertical conveyor option and
for the shaft in the hoisting option. The structural component of the shaft costs is
for concrete lining where the hoisting option requires a larger shaft to get sufficient
cross-section to meet the production requirements.
77 General cost includes items to make the system operational, but are not directly
related to installation cost. These include communications system to monitor con-
veyors by camera and controls, maintenance elevators for conveyors, camp costs,
detailed engineering and the contractors’ and owner’s project supervision personnel.
77 The hoist room costs include hoisting equipment (conveyances, ropes, attachments,
hoist, controls) and off-shaft excavations for the equipment installation.
77 Crushing includes rock breakers, grizzlies, crushers, and related material feeding
equipment. This includes dust collection equipment and all conveyors.
77 The hoisting option includes sinking costs for winches required to install ground
support shaft steel. Analogous functions for the conveyor installation are included in
the conveyor installation and are accomplished with the raise climber.
77 Cost for high angle conveyor provided by Joy Global Inc. All other costing by
Nordmin Engineering Ltd.

Contractor’s and Owner’s indirect costs are included based on the duration of the installation
schedule. Indirect costs include supervision labor, quality control, camp costs (food and lodg-
ing), communication services, mobilization and demobilization.
The construction personnel requirements for both options, which dictated the camp costs,
were assumed to be similar in number and composition. The difference in camp cost was due
to construction duration.
The elimination of the loading pocket related costs appear to be the single largest differ-
ence in capital cost between the two options. The hoist room installation cost is comparable to
the crusher installation cost as are the shaft/raise costs. The ore handling system requires the
loading of a conveyor in both options since the hoisting option has a conveyor as part of the
skip loading system. The skip loading conveyor is wider and the loading system has to be larger
to accommodate the larger particle size, so in effect, is a higher cost installation.

CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
The overall schedule for both options was evaluated using the same advance rates for ramps
and raise excavations. The total duration from project initiation to the commissioning of the
system was 103 weeks for the conveyor option and 129 weeks for the hoisting option. In both
cases, as would be expected for an underground project, the longest portion of the project was
the construction phase but there were other factors that led to the duration difference. Figure 6
 COMPARISON OF A HOISTING SYSTEM AND VERTICAL CONVEYOR 373

Table 1.  Capital cost estimate

Total Capital Cost with Contingency

Vertical Conveyor Hoisting
Loading Pocket $10,183,833
Mechanical $4,020,423
Structural $2,075,910
Mining $4,087,500
Shaft $14,700,833 $17,213,333
Structural $4,238,333 $8,963,333
Mining $10,462,500 $8,250,000
General $38,252,891 $37,283,138
Electrical $7,268,021 $1,932,188
Mechanical $2,536,120
Structural $559,075
Mining $408,750 $408,750
Camp Cost $13,500,000 $18,562,500
Engineering & Project Management $14,540,000 $15,820,625
Hoist Room $21,626,223
Electrical $4,425,000
Mechanical $12,549,348
Mining $4,651,875
Crushing $26,696,626 $4,049,200
Electrical $677,592 $250,000
Mechanical $4,121,380 $2,767,600
Structural $858,592 $1,031,600
Mining $2,289,063
High Angle Conveyor $18,750,000
Sinking $1,875,000
Mining $1,875,000
Grand Total $79,650,350 $92,230,727

shows a schedule for the two options. The differentiating tasks for the two options are shown
in Table 2.
There is a scheduling difference of 26 week between the two options. Boring the high
angle conveyor shafts in tandem allowed installation to begin sooner thus reducing overall
construction time. The hoisting option required complete shaft excavation before equipment
could be installed.
374 INCLINE TRANSPORT: HOIST, CONVEYOR, AND TRUCK

Figure 6.  Gantt chart for two options

Table 2.  Schedule differences

Task Vertical Conveyor Hoisting

Raise Excavation Done in two parallel activities One single activity lasting
lasting 55 weeks with conveyor 53 weeks
installation
Detailed Engineering 16 weeks – more engineering is 22 weeks – includes shaft design
transferred to the supplier and hoisting coordination
Hoist Room Excavation Not required 24 weeks total including ropeway
Crusher Room Excavation 24 weeks for crusher room Not required
Procurement – 52 weeks for conveyor 40 weeks for hoist
Long Lead Time

OTHER FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION

For a complete evaluation of these systems some other factors would need to be considered
such as operating costs, construction and operating risks, constructability and maintenance.
These considerations could fill the pages of several other papers to be properly evaluated.

CONCLUSION
Though not the best solution in every case, for shallow shafts, vertical conveyors deserve seri-
ous consideration based on capital cost, and schedule advantages during construction. The
vertical conveyor’s capital cost is attractive mostly because of the elimination of the loading
pocket. The reduced construction duration also allows the system to be on line earlier, thus
reducing construction camp costs and improving the project payback profile. The fact that the
conveyors do not need to be installed in the same shaft also allows for an easier to execute mine
deepening while operating.