Shaft Sinking in Canada & South Africa:

A Multi-National Perspective

Roy S. Slack, P.Eng.

Member – Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy & Petroleum
President - Cementation Canada Inc.

Originally presented at the Canadian Institute of Mining Conference in

Montreal, May 2003
Abstract
This paper is an overview of past, present and
future trends regarding the science and art of
shaft sinking. It is well recognized that shaft
sinking is a critical part of the mine development
cycle in terms of both capital cost and schedule.
More than ever, underground deposits in Canada
require early access via surface shafts or internal
shafts. Major existing Canadian producers are
going deeper and shaft access is often the only
viable option.
Historically the South African mining industry has
sunk more shafts and deeper shafts than any
other area of the world. Recently a number of
Canadian operations have undertaken or
considered shafts to similar depths as those that
have been sunk in South Africa.
The challenges facing shaft sinking in Canada
have often differed from those of South Africa,
however as Canadian operations go deeper there
are many parallels and opportunities for
technology transfer between the two industries.
This paper will review the various challenges of
shaft sinking in both countries, and how shaft
sinking practices have evolved to address those
challenges. Such challenges include safety,
ground conditions, water inflows, schedule
demands, heat stress, regulations governing
sinking and skilled manpower requirements.
The present state of shaft sinking is reviewed as
well as Cementation’s efforts to recognize,
develop and employ specific technologies and
approaches in both Canadian and South African
shaft sinking projects.
A brief review of the challenges of the future and
where the industry is heading is also presented.
Finally it is important to recognize that despite the
technologically advanced equipment, systems,
and methods of shaft sinking that we have today
and will develop in the future, shaft sinking is an
art as well as a science. The skills to utilize all of
the technology are dependent on the experience,
desire and drive of the people involved in all
aspects of the process.
Introduction
This paper will review vertical shaft sinking
methods by conventional drill and blast methods
in Canada and South Africa. There are many
areas of study such as mechanical excavation
methods and inclined shafts, and special
applications such as freezing and tubbing, which
have not been addressed in this paper. Since this
is a broad overview of shaft sinking practices in
Canada and South Africa, and although specific
projects may be mentioned, this paper is not
meant to describe a preferred method, but rather
prevalent methods in the industry.
Due to the magnitude of the topic, the
methodologies presented are necessarily dealt
with in a brief manner. The intent is to examine
similarities and differences between shaft sinking
practices in both countries. It is also recognized
that many countries have contributed to the
advancement of technologies in shaft sinking,
and that many areas of the world are very active
in further development of these practices.
This paper is also presented from a Contractor’s
perspective as service providers to the mining
industry at large and is specific to mining and
mine exploration.
A Brief History
Shaft sinking dates back to prehistoric times,
however the limitations that were present then
are still being dealt with today. Rope technology
and hoisting power have dictated the depth that
we could sink and operate shafts through the
ages. Ancient shaft projects were hand
excavated and typical maximum shaft
dimensions of 2m diameter and depths of 30m.
(Stringer, 2002)
th th
From the 15 to 17 century shafts grew in
dimension to 3m diameter and 60 m in depth with
the introduction of early pumping technologies
th
and in the 17 century the application of
gunpowder.
With the industrial revolution and the advent of
steam power the mechanization of hoisting plants
and the availability of iron and steel tools meant
that there was a much greater demand for certain
metals, as well as the means to access them.
Shafts grew to 4m diameter and up to 300m in
depth. In South Africa in 1897 a 4 compartment
timber shaft was sunk to a depth of 727m.
(Thompson, 1970)
Major innovations in the last century including
advances in hoisting technology, wire rope
manufacture, the application of grouting,
explosives technology and the mechanization of
the sinking method have all helped contribute to
our ability to sink deeper and faster. Today shafts
in the order of 9m diameter are being sunk, and
the deepest single lift shaft sunk to date is the
South Deep main shaft in South Africa at 2991 m.
Underground Access by Vertical Shaft
There are a number of options available in
selection of access methods for an exploration or
mining project. Such options include ramp
development, inclined shaft, or vertical shaft.
Typically exploration or production in operations
of less than 300m in depth can be reasonably
carried out by ramp access. In South Africa the
use of inclined shafts has been frequent due to
the flat trending reef deposits, which lend
themselves to inclined shaft access. Many
inclined shafts are still in operation and
development today.
In Canada open pit and ramp access operations
were sometimes supplemented with a shaft.
Deeper and larger shafts were being sunk in the
1950s however the standard was the smaller
timber shaft. Larger shafts (by Canadian
standards) like the Geco No.4 shaft , a 1310m
deep shaft of 6.55m diameter completed in
1965, were the exception rather than the norm.
The Project Process & Contractor Selection
The project process includes a number of steps
that have substantial impact on the cost,
schedule and makeup of the final product. From
the concept and feasibility studies, through to
evaluation of options and a decision on the path
forward, the process of initial engineering is
critical to the success of the project.
It is well worth the time for the mine Owner to
develop a procurement strategy to find the
Contractor who is best suited to meet the goals
and requirements of the project. The selection of
a Contractor can be carried out in a number of
ways throughout the course of the planning and
procurement stages of a shaft project. The
sooner a Contractor is involved in a shaft project,
the more likely that the specialist knowledge that
Contractors have, can be used to advantage in
defining realistic budgets and project schedules,
and determining optimum methods and designs
conducive with installation and performance.
In both Canada and South Africa in most cases
shaft sinking is carried out by Contractors who
specialize and are experienced in such work. In
South Africa, due to the volume of shaft sinking
carried out, some mining houses have developed
their own internal specialist groups. Until quite
recently Anglo American had Shaft Sinkers,
which was a well recognized shaft sinker in South
Africa. In Canada Noranda had a contracting
division, Mining Corp, which was active in shaft
sinking and mine development until its closure in
the late 1980s. There are still internal specialist
groups in operation today in both countries,
although when it comes to deep vertical shafts
the work is most often contracted out. In general
the shaft work volume of any one operator in
Canada does not warrant an in-house specialist
group in this area.
Typically the Contractor is selected by a
tendering process. In Canada this process
ranges from firm price bidding on a well defined
scope, to the bidding of a concept to establish a
commercial arrangement that will allow the
Owner and Contractor to work together to design
and build the shaft facility. In almost all cases the
Contractor is expected to provide design and
supply of temporary equipment.
In South Africa the traditional tendering process
has involved the Owner supplying shaft design
and providing certain equipment and
consumables that will be used. The Contractor
would supply the balance, as well as labour and
supervision. As Owner’s look for innovative
approaches and minimizing their contractual risk
they have given the Contractor’s more latitude in
their equipment and approaches.
The criteria for Contractor selection is consistent
in both Countries. Owners are interested in a
safe and cost effective sinking project that is
completed in good time with a realistic schedule.
Each project has various other criteria for bid
evaluation. In an operating mine that is
expanding or sinking an internal shaft, the ability
to work with the Owner’s crew and coordinate
material handling and waste removal is
paramount since disruption of production is not
an option. It bodes well within the mining industry
world wide to see the safety of the operations
and the Contractor’s safety performance as one
of the key parts of the selection process.
Shafts in South Africa and Canada
South Africa is a country of 1,219,912 square
kilometers and a population of 43,650,000. Within
this relatively small area there is more mining
operations and more mine production than
anywhere else in the world. The country has a
mature mining industry and is recognized as a
world leader in many aspects of mine operation
and development. Mining represents 7.5% of the
GDP and the industry employs 2.6% of the
working population. It is estimated that in the time
period of 2000 to 2004 a total of 78 Billion Rand
($14.95 billion CAD) will be invested in mine
capital projects and development. (Chamber of
Mines SA, 2001) In shaft sinking the South
African industry has sunk more, and deeper,
shafts than any other country. At this time in
South Africa there are 7 vertical shafts being
sunk, and in excess of 150 shafts in operation.
shafts with timber was last seen in the 1960’s.
South African shafts in the Witwatersrand area
often encounter large volume water flows and
methane, hence cover drilling and cementation
(grouting) is standard procedure in shaft sinking.
The introduction of grouting by Cementation in
the early 1900’s, which was followed by major
shaft sinking projects in the 1930s allowed for the
sinking of many shafts in this area that were
previously impossible to sink due to water
inflows.
Water inflows are experienced in Canadian
shafts but not to the same degree as those in
South Africa. The exception would be the Potash
shafts of Saskatchewan, which had to pass
through the Blairmore formations ( a zone of
water bearing unconsolidated and poorly
cemented sands, silts and shales). Many of these
shafts were sunk in the 1950s and 60’s and
applied ground freezing or tubbing lining methods
to control water inflows. These shafts were
typically 4.8 to 5.6m diameter and were sunk to a
depth of 1200 m.

Canada, one of the largest but at the same time

least populated countries in the world, has a
wealth of natural resources and is recognized as
one of the leading countries in hardrock mining.
With an area of 9,976,140 square kilometers and
a population of 31,900,000 , the Canadian mining
industry (excluding oil and gas) contributes less
than 1% to the GDP and employs about 2.4% of
the working population. Capital projects including
exploration are estimated at $5 billion Cdn (26
billion ZAR). (Bouchard, 2000) Canada has 5
shafts being sunk and approximately 100 shafts
in operation.

As a general comment, South Africa sinks more

shafts, larger shafts and deeper shafts than
Canada. South African shafts are typically
circular concrete lined. Finished diameters
commonly vary between 6 and 9 meters, with the
larger being for men and materials, and the
smaller for ventilation duty. Shaft depths of
between 1500m to 2000m are considered
normal, with deep shafts of 2800 to 3000 meters
the extreme. (Douglas and Pfützenreuter, 1997).
Early South African shafts were rectangular
“timber” shafts however the practice of equipping
Canadian Timber Shaft
Canadian shaft design has been a mix of
rectangular timber shafts and concrete lined
shafts. Even recently major timber shaft sinks
have been undertaken including Dome No.8 shaft
at 1615m deep in 1984, Golden Giant mine in
1986 (initially 1146m, recently deepened), and
the Macassa shaft (2217 m deep) in the mid
1980s. As recent as 1996 the Kinross Hoyle
Pond shaft ( 815m deep) in the Timmins area
was sunk as a 4 compartment rectangular timber
shaft. The larger and deeper shafts by Canadian
standards are in general circular and continuos
concrete lined. Diameters vary from 4.9m up to
7.6m and are usually dictated by ventilation
requirements. The deepest single lift shaft in
Canada is Agnico Eagle’s Penna Shaft at their
Laronde mine at 2240m in depth and 5m in
diameter, the shaft was completed in 2000. Some
Canadian operators are presently contemplating
shafts of 2800 to 3000 metres in depth.
Safety
This is a topic of paramount importance to shaft
sinking Contractors and to mine Owners. The
shaft has long been recognized as a work area
that has all the hazards associated with work
underground, but those hazards are compounded
by gravity and working at heights.
In general, the global mining industry has
improved the safety of their operations
substantially. A fundamental change in approach
from acceptance of past performances, to a
focused effort on analysing and proactively
addressing problems, has led to a large reduction
in accident rates. Realization that the industry
can change was probably the largest single factor
in improving. The shaft sinking profession has
improved in line and more so than the global
trends. In Canada accident ratings are in line with
statistics for operating mines. In South Africa
accident frequency ratings are lower than in
Canada, and systems and training are well
developed. South African operations still must
deal with the severity of accidents and the
occurrence of fatalities, which mar an otherwise
positive performance, and are currently the
primary focus of the industry. There is no doubt
that these occurrences will become a thing of the
past in the near future.
Shaft Sinking Methods
The development of sinking methods of Canada
and South Africa, and the main differences of
those methods, are largely influenced by a few
key factors, those being:
• Depth of shaft
• Plan area of the shaft excavation
• Legislated regulations
• Demographics and cost of labour
A typical 6 metre South African shaft sinking
project today would have a cactus grab mucking
system coupled with a sling down pneumatic drill.
In Canada the larger and deeper shafts in the
past ten years have been sunk full face with
electro hydraulic drill jumbos, either slung down
or stage mounted. Mucking is carried out with
either Cryderman style mucking units, or a cactus
grab arrangement.
South African methods have been incorporated
into many Canadian shaft sinking operations,
with mixed results. As a general observation,
where the method has taken into account
differences in shaft size and labour contingent,
the project has been successful, however
wholesale adoption of South African methods in
North America has never achieved the
performance and success of the South African
operations.
Recently the typical Canadian sinking plant
arrangement was setup for a shaft sinking project
in South Africa, and was unsuccessful. The
project was completed with a more traditional
South African approach.
Canada has gained much from South Africa’s
substantial shaft sinking experience. It is only in
recent years that some Canadian practices have
gained the attention of South African shaft
sinkers, particularly in areas of mechanization.
The Shaft Sinking Cycle
Although different projects have some unique
characteristic, often governed by ground or water
problems, the sinking cycle for most conventional
shaft sinking operations includes drilling, blasting,
removal of the blasted rock (mucking), ground
support, concrete lining placement, and
installation of services.
Drilling
Hand held pneumatic rock drills, also referred to
as pluggers, or sinkers in South Africa, made
their first appearance in South African shaft
sinking in 1919 and had a marked influence on
shaft sinking. These were two man machines
with jack-hammer action and axial water feed
with hollow drill steel. By far the predominant
shaft drilling method in South Africa was by hand
held pluggers. The South African operations used
the two man machine and typically would have
50 men on the shaft bottom operating 25
pluggers or more and drilling 7 to 8 holes per
machine. As many as 36 pluggers have been
used simultaneously on the shaft bottom.
(Thompson, 1970). The drill pattern would be full
face to a depth of 2.5m and would use a burn or
pyramid style cut. With the amount of throw the
working stage would have to be raised 70m or
more above the bottom to protect it from blast
damage.
A Typical Shaft Sinking Cycle in South Africa
The use of drill jumbos in the USA attracted
interest from both Canada and South Africa. The
concept of a sling down drill jumbo was of
interest, however in South Africa the jumbo
productivity would have to better 25 drills and
would have to pay for itself in a market with a
relatively low labour cost in relation to North
America. The capital for the initial units was
relatively high as well. South African shaft sinking
first used drill jumbos on a major shaft excavation
in the late 1970s where a 4 boom sling down
pneumatic unit was used to sink the Cooke
No.2A 6m diameter vent shaft. Stage mass
limitations at depth to keep within rope load
factors favored sling down units. The simpler
pneumatic drifters were preferred as the air was
already at the shaft bottom for the cactus grabs
and blowover. Following this experiment a 6
boom Gardner Denver unit was employed on the
Cooke No.3 shaft, a 9m diameter shaft of 1373m
in depth. The crew size for this job was reduced
from 57 sinkers per shift to 24 sinkers per day.
(Chadwick, 1983) Despite the drastic reduction
in manpower, the savings in labour costs may not
have offset the capital cost of the drill rig at that
time.
South African Sling Down Pneumatic Jumbo
A Typical Shaft Sinking Cycle in Canada
By 1990 drill jumbos had been used on a number
of shaft projects in South Africa, and although
they were a proven technology, were not the
predominant method. These jumbos were sling
down units and the number of drills on a jumbo
was limited by the ability of the hoist to lift the
unit, and by the physical size of the openings in
the stage through which the unit would have to
pass. By the 1990s it was recognized that
jumbos provided enhanced productivity per
manshift and reduced costs per metre sunk. The
drilling depth of 3m matched well with cycling two
3m deep rounds per day. One of the main
constraints was the capital requirement, where
the initial cash outlay for the equipment was
substantially more than the plugger method.
Today the drill jumbo has by and large
superseded hand held drill sinking methods in
South Africa. Drill jumbos of 7 booms and
capable of 6m drilled rounds are in use.
Pneumatic drills with hydraulic booms are the
norm, and well suited for the often wet conditions
encountered in South African shafts.
With much higher labour costs, and much smaller
shafts, Canadian and North American shaft
drilling evolved differently to the South African
industry. The typical drilling equipment for many
years in the industry was the plugger, a single
man jack hammer style drill that is still in use
today. Where the shafts were mainly rectangular
timber shafts, a benching technique was used to
drill half the shaft bottom to a depth of 2.4m,
resulting in an equivalent break of 1.2m of shaft
per blast. With less room for drills, and more
expensive labour, shaft drilling crews would be
anywhere from 4 men up to 9 men per shift.
In 1951 St.Joe Minerals used a 4 boom shaft
jumbo to sink a shaft at their Missouri operations.
As early as 1962 they experimented with a
specialized cut boom on their shaft jumbo, to
effect a burn cut to remove the fly rock
associated with the traditional pyramid cut used
in full face sinking. (Roscoe, 1983). In 1963
Cementation used a 10 boom Ingersoll Rand
jumbo fitted with pneumatic drills to sink the Geco
No.4 shaft.
Sling Down Two Boom El-Hyd Jumbo in Canada
Drilling in Canada saw the introduction of shaft
jumbos in a number of projects through the
years. The main restrictions were the same as
those encountered in South Africa, room to sling
the unit down and ability of the hoist to lift the
jumbo. With smaller shafts and hoists of limited
capacity the use of a 4 or 6 boom jumbo was not
feasible. There were some shafts that utilized drill
jumbos or modified jumbo arrangements (Dome
No.8 shaft, Macassa No.3 shaft). In 1987 Atomic
Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) commissioned a
shaft sinking for their research facility in
Manitoba, where two single boom electro-
hydraulic jumbos were used. Although not a
traditional shaft sink in many respects, it did
prove the viability of using electro-hydraulic
jumbos in a shaft sinking environment. Since that
time many Canadian shaft sinking projects have
used electric-hydraulic jumbos. Typically an
electric-hydraulic drill can double the
performance of a pneumatic jumbo drill, which
allows a reduced number of booms (and their
associated weight and size) to drill the same
bench. Through the 1990s further development of
the electric-hydraulic jumbo has helped
overcome some of the challenges of electrics in a
wet environment, and safety hazards and
maintenance of the units. The systems still
struggle with very wet environments, an
important consideration in looking at the
application of this equipment in South Africa.
Today single boom and two boom electric-
hydraulic jumbos are designed to drill up to 6m
rounds. In most Canadian shafts two booms will
provide the coverage required to drill the shaft
bench. Additional drills are incorporated to speed
the cycle and provide redundancy. Jumbos can
be slung down or can be resident in the work
platform, both methods have been used
successfully. Sling down jumbos can be set on
the shaft bottom or hung in the work stage.
Blasting & Blowing Smoke
The predominant shaft blasting method in South
Africa has been full face methods, with a burn
cut, a wedge or pyramid cut. A typical bench
drilled by hand held pluggers would be drilled to a
depth of 2.3m, with 180 to 240 holes required.
Expected break would be 2m. holes of 41mm
diameter are drilled. Since the shaft sinking
bottom is wet, from either ground water or drill
water, suitable explosives are required. This
precludes the use of ANFO or any of the less
expensive blasting agents. The traditional
explosive was a nitro based explosive 60%
ammon gelignite. The control of the shaft wall
overbreak is important in reducing the amount of
concrete placed for lining as well as the amount
of rock hoisted to surface. This must always be
balanced against the time to drill and the risk of
the shaft being under excavated, resulting in
chipping of tights. Various methods have been
employed over the years to try and control this,
including decoupled loading of perimeter holes,
and reduced spacing between holes on the
perimeter.
The introduction of the shaft jumbo in South
Africa provided a larger diameter hole and the
ability to drill deeper rounds. The initial shaft
jumbos were designed to drill 3.4 m rounds. The
number of holes is reduced due to the diameter
and for a 45mm diameter drill hole a pattern of
100 to 120 holes would be typical. Today typical
shaft jumbo rounds are 3.5m in depth with some
experimenting done to date on up to 6m deep
rounds.
The use of a sling down jumbo, which sits on the
shaft bottom, makes the center portion of the
shaft inaccessible to the jumbo. Some units have
a down the hole hammer in the center of the
jumbo allowing a stab hole to be drilled. Cut
holes look in from the base of the jumbo, creating
a combination burn cut/wedge cut style blast
pattern. This allows a long round but also creates
throw so still requires the work platform to be
moved up to 70m to be safe from flyrock.
In Canada the timber shafts, and some circular
concrete shafts, have been sunk using benching.
By drilling half the shaft and blasting, the blast
creates a sump that muck and water can collect
in, leaving the free face clean to drill on for the
next blast. The depth of the round is dependent
on the shaft size and geometry, a typical bench
being 2.4m in depth. Plugger drilling would result
in anywhere from 30 to 60 holes per blast
depending on the shaft size. This technique
tends to throw the muck toward the sump, since it
is a slashing method. This allows the shaft crew
to bring the shaft timber closer to the bench than
with a full face open cut method. Explosives
employed were similar to those used in South
Africa, a nitro based explosive designed for wet
conditions.
As noted previously, as early as 1962 the
benefits of a burn cut were recognized in
reducing throw of the blast and eliminating work
platform travel time in the sinking cycle. The
AECL project experimented with and proved on
an experimental basis the burn cut for full face
shaft sinking. The method was further developed
at the Falconbridge TL and Craig shafts in the
late 1980’s.
Today the full face sinking approach in Canada
with a true burn cut is well established. The burn
cut can be drilled with the shaft jumbos or in
some cases with a separate “cut” jumbo, most
often a longhole type of drill designed for a larger
(150mm to 200mm) cut hole. The cut jumbo can
be resident in the stage or can be slung down.
Emulsion Pot Canada
In the mid 1990’s the application of emulsion
explosives for shaft sinking was tried in Canada
and was successful. Since that time shafts in
Canada have used emulsions for shaft blasting.
The explosives are delivered to the shaft bottom
in a metal container and the explosive is pumped
from the pot into the blast holes. The use of this
explosive results in fewer holes than were
required before, a faster loading time, and better
fragmentation.
Mucking and Cleanup
Early shaft sinking was mucked by hand into
buckets (kibbles) of various sizes and shapes.
The main limitation yesterday, today, and
tomorrow is hoisting capacity, which is governed
by two principal factors, hoisting capacity (rope
pull and speed), and rope capacity.
Mucking by hand was the prevalent method in
South Africa until the early 1950’s, at which time
the mechanized mucking equipment known as a
pneumatically powered cactus grab was
introduced for sinking the Vlakfontein No.2 shaft
in 1951. The shaft is a 7.3m diameter shaft that
was sunk to a depth of 2103m. Introduction of the
mechanical unit resulted in a substantial
reduction in required labour. Typical hand
mucking crews were in the order of 300 men per
day, however the Vlakfontein shaft reduced that
contingent to about 160 men with mechanical
mucking, and set sinking advance records of
178m in one month. (Thompson, 1970) The
success of the method was obvious and it has
become the standard mucking system in South
African shaft sinking.
Cactus Grab Mucking System South Africa
The cactus grab system is ideal for circular shafts In the late 1980’s OJ Industries manufactured an
greater than 6m in diameter. Grabs of .56 m3 alternative to the Cryderman. The OJ shaft
capacity are recommended for shafts of 6m to mucking units came in 3 sizes, including the
8m diameter, and the 0.85 m3 grab is for larger “Brutus” a 0.57 m3 unit with a longer boom reach.
shafts. (Douglas and Pfützenreuter, 1997) This system allowed the use of larger buckets,
and had a higher mucking capacity per hour.
In South Africa where shafts diameters are larger
than typical Canadian shafts, there is adequate
room to mount a cactus grab lashing under the
work stage, and at the same time not limit the
bucket diameter. This unit requires approximately
2m in the center of the shaft.

In North America Eimco (USA) introduced the

Rocker Shovel Loader (over shot loader) in
1938, and the machine went into wider use in
underground mines in the 1940s. Due to the size
of the unit it could be used in shafts greater than
5m excavated in length or diameter. It would load
into a bucket not more than 2m in height. The
over shot loader is still used today in excavating
shaft stations, shaft collars, and some shallow
shafts of large diameter shafts.

Eimco Rocker Shovel Loader

In Canada in the 1950s, when the cactus grab

was gaining popularity in South Africa, the
Cryderman mucker was introduced in Canada. It
was used successfully to muck the MacLean
Shaft at Buchans, Newfoundland (1957) and has
found widespread use since then. The
Cryderman mucker is a pneumatic clam shell
operated on a boom which can pull back up to
3.7m allowing the clam shell to load into a
bucket. This system was a vast improvement
over hand mucking, and although it did not have
the mucking speed or capacity of a cactus grab Cryderman Mucking Unit
system, it had the flexibility of working in both
circular and rectangular shafts, as well as In Canada the cactus grab was also used on
inclined shafts. With smaller shafts being sunk in major shaft projects with shaft dimensions that
Canada, the Cryderman system was an ideal were large enough to employ the unit. In
alternative to the cactus grab. Today the rectangular shafts the riddel mucker, a system
Cryderman operates with a 0.38m3 bucket. One designed to run a grab type unit in a rectangular
positive feature of the Cryderman is its ability to shaft, was also used.
clean the bench due to a fixed boom. The bench
cleaning time with a Cryderman style mucking Since the mucking of the shafts is so critical to
unit is less than a grab system. the overall cycle time and advance rate, it is
common to try and maximize the bucket capacity.
Shaft bucket capacity is a function of the hoist and predict rope problems before they become a
capability and the physical room available for a hazard.
bucket. As a rule of thumb, the bucket height
should be not greater than 1.5 times the bucket
diameter for stability. This rule has been
exceeded on occasion, however it illustrates the
physical restriction of bucket size. In South Africa
with large diameter shafts, larger buckets were
possible. Bucket sizes of 9 to 10 tonnes were
typical in the larger shafts in the 1970s. In
Canada a 4 to 6 tonne bucket was sizable.
Smaller shafts in Canada also favored a
cryderman style mucker where the unit could be
located at the shaft wall rather than in the middle
of the shaft, and allow a larger diameter bucket.
In the mid to late 1980s bucket sizes in Canada
were beginning to catch up to those in South
Africa with some projects using 10 tonne buckets.

As buckets increase in capacity and height, the

stroke length of the Cryderman style muckers
become a productivity factor. With a 3m high
bucket and a 4m boom stroke on a Cryderman
style unit, the mucking unit will struggle to
maintain productivity.

13.6 tonne Buckets with Grab in Canada

In Quebec hoisting regulations have recently

changed to match current South African
legislation regarding production hoisting. This has
been driven by Agnico Eagle, where they have
recently completed the deepest shaft in North
America. It is not a coincidence that when
contemplating a shaft of this depth they looked to
South African practices and technology.
(McLaughlin, 2000)

Similar changes to legislation have recently been

Two Cryderman Style Muckers in Canada
In Canada the use of a Cryderman style mucker,
although not as productive as a cactus grab,
often made good sense based on the physical
dimensions of the shaft.
As shafts go deeper, and hoisting equipment
continues to evolve, larger buckets are becoming
more commonplace. In both South Africa and
Canada buckets of 15 tonne capacity have been
used. With deep shafts of large diameter, the
main restriction on rope end load is the capacity
of the hoisting rope. The allowable capacity of the
rope is dictated by the legislated safety factors for
hoisting. South Africa has more detailed
legislation in this area, and recently has allowed
dispensation on safety factors where the
operators demonstrate that they can provide
systems to continuously monitor rope tensions
enacted in Ontario as well. Neither of these
changes directly refer to or effect the regulations
pertaining to shaft sinking, however the
reasoning behind the changes is equally
applicable to shaft sinking and it is probable that
changes to the shaft sinking guidelines will be
enacted in the near future.
As we go deeper, the trend in both countries is
larger capacity hoisting plants in both rope pull
and speed, and larger buckets. This is happening
now, and the we may find that the mucking
systems we have used for the past 50 years may
not keep up with new hoisting equipment.
Without doubt the mucking portion of the sinking
cycle is the most time consuming and we will
continue to optimize mucking systems.
As mine Owners look at deeper shafts and tighter
timelines in Canada, the shaft design, plan and
size must consider the sinking equipment as well
as the permanent furnishings.
Lining
All shafts of any size or depth in South Africa in
recent memory have been concrete lined.
Although there have been some recent timber
shafts in Canada, larger and deeper shafts are
and will continue to be concrete lined. The
general design and placement systems for
installing shaft lining are similar for both
countries.
The lining serves a number of purposes, the main
ones being:
• To provide passive local support of the shaft
wall;
• To seal the shaft walls;
• To produce a smooth shaft wall of low
aerodynamic resistance and;
• To provide a precisely located surface to fix
services and shaft furnishings to.
Although many timber shafts have been sunk in
Canada, it is recognized that a concrete lining
reduces shaft maintenance, especially for deeper
shafts and may eliminate critical down time in the
main shaft access.
The lining is usually a 20 to 30MPa 28 day
compressive strength concrete. Design thickness
of 250mm to 300mm is a typical specification and
is more a requirement of the physical installation
and excavation techniques and embeddments
than of any ground control requirements. Pour
heights are often determined by set spacing,
which ranges from 5 to 6m in most shafts sunk
today.
South African Batch Plant
The systems of placement are by a shaft form
which is of two principal parts, the curb and the
mains. The curb ring and panel is the first part of
the form to be set, and it is set to a very close
tolerance by shaft alignment systems. Once the
curb ring and panel are set the pour is scribed
off, meaning that a floor is built off of the curb
panel to support the pour. In South Africa bunton
boxes, nut boxes or chair plate backers can be
cast in place. In Canada a threaded insert is the
most common design for securing shaft
furnishings. The curb ring and panel is 750mm to
1m in height and will take anywhere from 10 to
15 m3 of concrete depending on shaft diameter
and excavation profile.
In South Africa the concrete supply is usually
from a batch plant on site, often adjacent to the
shaft itself. Batch plants of 20 to 30m3 per hour
are typical. Placement is through a slick line, a
vertical pipe in the shaft dedicated to concrete
transport. The pipe is a 150mm diameter heavy
wall pipe that is connected by flanges and
aligned with a plumb line to be vertical. Often two
lines will be present to provide some contingency
for a plugged line. Concrete falling in a pipe
undergoes some segregation and a remix is
attached to the bottom of the line to allow the
concrete to remix before being distributed into
two distribution hoses. The hoses feed a
distribution system on the work stage that
provides hose feed into the forms.
The concrete required for a slickline placement
method usually requires a spread of 500 to
600mm. Super plasticisers are employed to
improve flowability and cohesion of the mix and
to achieve early setting of the curb ring. Calcium
chloride is a common additive for this purpose.
Aggregate grading is critical and usually specified
within an envelope having a maximum of 20mm.
In Canada the same systems are used with some
minor differences. The slickline is most often a
Victaulic style coupling rather than a flanged
arrangement. Canadian systems use a remix
“boot” at the end of the slickline that has one
hose. The use of calcium chloride is rare in
Canada and is not used in shaft concrete,
although the use may result in some costs
savings. In certain areas where it is available,
flyash is used to reduce cement content and
concrete costs. On some projects a site batch
plant is constructed, and on others local suppliers
use mixer trucks to deliver the concrete. In
Canada the trend is to restrict pouring to day shift
to maintain a constant crew.
Some projects in Canada have used concrete
buckets to transport the shaft concrete to the
forms. This requires a large bucket capacity and
can result in better quality control of concrete
since segregation is minimal. Rates of placement
are said to be competitive with slicklines, and the
need for one or two pipes in the shaft are
eliminated. Bucket transport of concrete for the
shaft lining is rare in South Africa, since in South
Africa mucking is often carried out concurrent
with pouring of the mains.
A fundamental difference in placement methods
between the two countries is how the shaft pour
fits into the overall sinking cycle. In South Africa
while lining is poured mucking is carried out,
usually. This concurrent activity helps to reduce
the effect of pouring on the sinking cycle, and
also reduces the urgency, and therefore the
batch plant capacity required for pouring the
mains. In Canada the shaft pouring is done to
completion before other work is continued,
making the pouring of the mains as critical as the
mucking or drilling cycle.
Ground Support
Although horizontal stresses do vary
considerably from region to region in South
Africa, the stress differential encountered is
typically less than that experienced in the
Canadian Shield. Deeper shafts in Canada and
particularly in the Canadian Shield are more
prone to bursting ground at depth. INCO shafts in
the Sudbury area (Creighton No.9 Shaft and
Victor) became active at depth of about 1000
metres, and destressing methods were
employed. The Macassa shaft in the Kirkland
Lake area was particularly active (as was the
mine), and this is most likely due to the very high
stress differential in this area.
Temporary or permanent ground support over
and above the concrete lining is often required.
Usually the shaft walls will require a certain time
period to relax before applying the concrete
lining. The grab system of mucking requires the
shaft concrete to be back approximately 15m
from the bottom, providing ample time for the
shaft walls to incur any initial movements prior to
concreting. This means that there is 15m of
unsupported ground above the shaft bottom. The
ground conditions may dictate bolts, screen or
other support techniques. In some cases
shotcrete has been applied and may see more
applications in shaft sinking in the near future.
The main method for installing ground support in
both countries is by hand with hand held drilling
equipment.
In difficult ground some projects have gone to
pouring to the bench, however this method is not
generally conducive to jumbo drilling.
Ground support is part of the sinking cycle,
although with shaft jumbos requiring less than a
full crew, additional crew can bolt concurrent with
drilling, which reduces the amount of ground
support in the critical path time of the cycle.
Bolt specifications vary from project to project,
however it is usually temporary support being
installed and the pattern and selection of
materials takes into account speed of installation,
rather than longevity.
Ground Support Installation in Canada
In Canada the deeper shafts are sometimes
subject to rock bursting. Various methods of
destressing have been employed, the most
common being drilling of destress holes. Usually
a hole is drilled twice the length of the round and
the toe of the hole is blasted with the round, to
destress the area directly below of the round.
More common in South Africa is the requirement
for cover drilling to encounter and deal with
potential water inflows prior to exposing a water
bearing structure. For both destress drilling and
cover drilling the shaft jumbo has reduced time
and effort required to drill these holes.
Equipping
The installation of shaft furnishings and services
is a critical part of the shaft sinking process. The
fine alignment required for shaft steel requires
engineered systems and a controlled and
systematic approach to checking, jigging, aligning
and rechecking shaft steel installations. Typical
alignment requirements are to accuracy of +/-
3mm in plan and elevation.
During sinking certain services are required for
the shaft sinker, including a concrete line,
compressed air, service water, and ventilation
ducting. These services are installed during
sinking to maintain service to the work stage.
In South Africa most shafts are equipped after
the shaft excavation and lining is completed. The
shaft sinking equipment is brought up to surface
and any ducting or services no longer required
are stripped out. Although the option exists to
equip from the bottom up, the majority of
installations are from the top down. Special
equipping decks are installed and suspended in
the shaft for the crews to work from. Certain
installations require a brattice wall, these are
precast concrete panels that form a wall to
separate the shaft into two distinct
compartments, allowing the shaft to be a fresh air
and return air system. Installation of a brattice
wall is most effectively done from the bottom up.
Once the brattice wall is installed crews come
back down with separate equipping decks to
complete the shaft furnishings. Certain projects
have installed brattice wall and steel
simultaneously from the bottom up. Although not
common, the approach is feasible.
In South Africa, a significant part of the shaft
steel fabrication, jigging and drilling is done by
sinking crews on site.
In Canada there are two methods for equipping.
The first is to sink the shaft unequipped, as is
done in South Africa and installation methods are
quite similar. Shaft steel is installed from the top
down.
Shaft in Canada Equipped During Sinking
The second method is to equip the shaft as it is
sunk, installing steel off the sinking work platform
or off a separate equipping deck. Equipping
during sinking can have advantages and
disadvantages depending on the shaft
arrangement. In smaller shafts where rope
guided buckets would have minimal clearance,
buckets running on fixed guides can be larger.
On some projects concurrent level development
above a bulkhead is carried out. This approach
requires that the shaft be equipped above the
bulkhead to allow production conveyances to run
in the fixed compartments.
It is recognized that the continuity provided by
equipping after sinking is beneficial, however
equipping during sinking is a method that has
certain applications.
In Canada shaft steel fabrication and jigging is
most often done by a fabricator as opposed to
the Contractor or the mine Owner.
Comprehensive quality assurance programs are
applied at site to ensure the tolerances required.
Labour Utilization
Historically the South African mining industry has
had low labour costs in relation to North
American operations, and still does. It is
recognized that the gap is shrinking, the cost of
labour on a South African project is more
significant than in the past. Past practices have
been labour intensive, and operations like
cleaning the bench have not be an issue with
large crews to hand muck the clean up. Large
drilling crews are being reduced as shaft jumbos
become more commonplace.
In South Africa the call out system is sometimes
used to schedule shaft crews. Crews are trained
as specialists and are called out as required to
work on the part of the cycle that they specialize
in. The mucking crew will be called out when
required and will muck until their work is
complete. The drilling crew will only drill. This
method allows faster and better training of
miners, and allows groups to perfect their areas
of specialty.
In North America the high proportion of labour
cost to the total cost of a shaft project has
pushed mechanization as a viable means of not
only speeding sinking, but also substantially
reducing costs. Since crews are small, each
miner must be versatile and will at one time or
another be drilling and mucking. Often the
concrete pouring crew will be a specialist group
and will be on dayshift. However, when they are
not pouring lining they are required to drill and
muck as well.
In both Canada and South Africa shortages of
specialists are being experienced and both
countries are looking at labour shortages in the
near future and must determine ways to
introduce and train personnel in shaft sinking. In
South Africa, even though there has been
continuity of shaft sinking over the years, the
volume of work ongoing and upcoming, coupled
with requirements for more specialist and
technical support are resulting in skills shortages.
This is being addressed through extensive
training.
In Canada since the volume of shaft sinking
carried out is not great, and the labour
requirements at any one time are not extensive,
there is a lack of continuity and experienced shaft
sinkers are gravitating towards other mining
occupations for some stability and continuity.
Advance Rates: Factors
Traditionally, the South African sinking industry
has attained high rates of sinking advance. In the
1950s with the introduction of the cactus grab,
and with large crews and hand held drills, peak
performances of 5.7 m per day were being
achieved. With more recent innovations and
increases in mucking rates and bucket sizes,
sinking performances rates have not increased,
however the productivity per manshift has
increased twofold or more. Average sinking rates
have climbed with average sinking rates, not
including grouting or cover drilling, in the order of
5.0 m per day. With equipping included advance
rates of 4.4 m per day sink and equip are being
acheived.
Modern day performance rates in Canada have
achieved short term advance rates of 4.9 m per
day with longer term advance rates somewhere
between 3.5m and 4.1 m per day. For equipped
shafts the advance rates are between 3.0m and
3.4 m per day.
Some of the differences in the shaft sinking
advance rates between countries could be
attributed to the following:
• Larger shafts and equipment allow for
utilization of larger buckets and mucking
equipment;
• Difference in regulations allows larger
buckets and equipment;
• Larger crew sizes result in better
performance with the labour intensive parts
of the sinking cycle;
• Concurrent operations remove certain
chores from the critical path;
• Traditional methods have much shorter
learning curves;
• Experience.
As Canadian sinkers continually optimize their
systems, each project has a lengthy learning
curve to train crews and debug new systems. A
learning curve that takes between 300 to 450
metres of sinking to achieve peak advance
reduces the average sinking rate significantly.
The Challenges
Both countries are facing some new and many
familiar challenges.
Safety
The challenge is simple to define and
understand, to eliminate all accidents from the
work place. The first step to meeting any
challenge is the realization that the challenge can
be met. The task of leaders in the industry is to
ensure that the message is communicated in
words and actions, and to obtain a true
commitment from supervision that they believe
the goal can be achieved.
Depth
Shafts are going deeper. In South Africa the
South Deep project sunk a single lift shaft
3000m. In Canada at Kidd the No.4 shaft will be
over 3000m below surface when complete.
Sinking to these depths provides challenges with
hoisting ropes, heat at depth, and efficient
hoisting.
Ground
With deep mines comes ground support and
control challenges. Lining placement may depend
on when the ground has relaxed as opposed to
when the cycle is ready for lining. Temporary
support measures will increase, and risks with
station cutting and special in shaft excavations
will increase as well.
Water
South African operations have substantial
experience in dealing with major water inflows.
The challenges of controlling water will continue.
In Canada the inflow of water in many projects is
not a major challenge.
Water Inflows in South Africa
Skills
Experienced shaft sinking labour is in short
supply in both countries. In South Africa with the
labour pool and traditional levels of education,
workers require significant training for semi
skilled and skilled positions. The aids epidemic
will continue to deplete the work force.
In North America it has been difficult to attract
new people into the mining industry. Contractors
and Owners are competing for qualified labour.
Since the North American mining industry has
recently gone though a downturn, the upcoming
labour shortage has not yet hurt the industry.
However with stronger pricing and a resurgence
in the gold sector, the existing contracting labour
pool will not be sufficient to meet future demands.
The Future
What do we see in the near or distant future for
the shaft sinking trade?
Injury free operations. In South Africa the
immediate and long term goals continue to be
injury and fatality free operations. 15 years ago
that was the goal in Canada as well, and we have
made excellent progress. With smaller crews we
are in a better position to train and make safe
operations. We have to be committed to zero
accidents in our work places, design and train for
the long term. As we employ new technologies
we have to be even more diligent in hazard
analysis to ensure we do not learn our lessons
the hard way.
Deeper shafts which will require more powerful
hoists, and advanced rope technology. The
problems experienced to date with sinking ropes
(particularly bucket ropes) in ultra deep shafts
have not yet been definitively resolved.
(Wakefield, Wallace,& Davidtsz, 2000)
In North America a number of advances and
innovations in shaft sinking have been through
the drive and commitment of the Mine Owners.
One would expect the shaft sinkers to be driving
the innovation process, however without the
support and commitment of the Owners, new
ideas don’t get a chance to be applied in long
term operational settings. When a Mine Owner
has many shafts to sink the potential gains from
investing in innovation are evident, however
major shaft projects happen so seldom in
Canada that it is often difficult for Mine Owners to
see long term benefits from “experimentation” on
their project.
In South Africa the industry recognized that
regulations had to expand to recognize the
degree of sophistication of current and future
technologies. This trend has come to Canada,
where Quebec has made legislative revisions for
deep shafts, and Ontario will follows this year.
The next step is to define the intent of those
revisions as they apply to shaft sinking. South
Africa has taken that step, and Canada is about
to initiate the process.
The development of non-explosive methods of
excavation will result in a continuous system of
excavation for shafts. Experimental products
have been successful on a technical basis but
not yet capable of the productivity required to
make them economically feasible.
New technologies for ground support are being
developed for mining that may have positive
applications in the shaft. Development of spray
on linings and shotcrete delivery systems that are
efficient and remote operated may to eliminate
the ground support cycle from the critical path by
making it a concurrent operation with mucking.
South Africa has used the basic concept of
concurrent operations to reduce the shaft cycle to
advantage. There are opportunities in Canada to
apply these concepts to help increase the
advance rates. (Douglas, 1989)
In 1978 Robbins and Cementation operated a
shaft boring machine which excavated over 260m
of shaft in Alabama. Other blind shaft boring
equipment has been used on a limited basis
since then, however the method has not been
developed to a point where it can be applied on a
widespread basis.
As we mechanize our shaft operations we also
create the opportunity for remote operating and
automation. If automation and remote operations
can remove men from the shaft bench temporary
ground support can be eliminated, and
concurrent activities that would in the past
created risk for crews would become feasible.
Conclusions
“The subject of shaft sinking, the most
complicated of all mining problems….”, is the
statement that Mr. J.W. Brough uses to preface
the book “Shaft Sinking in Difficult Cases”
(Riemer, J. 1907).
What complicates shaft sinking is the many
intangibles that many other engineering and
construction disciplines do not encounter. As we
continually go deeper the rules of thumb and
experience of yesterday sometimes do not apply,
and we constantly deal with new situations. We
have a mix of sinking methods, which date back
50 years or more, in combination with constant
innovation and new technologies.
Within any contracted project, the goals and
relationship between the Owner and the
Contractor can be the difference between a
fluently executed project or a struggle to
complete it successfully.
As projects become more complex and the rules
of thumb change, successful performers of
yesterday do not guarantee success today. The
old style project manager has given way to a new
breed with skills in various areas and a focus on
satisfying the requirements of all the
stakeholders.
Shaft sinkers must foster and reward pride in
workmanship. This comes from recognizing that
the work we do is very special and that very few
groups around the world who can carry out the
projects that our Clients have entrusted us with.
CHADWICK, J. 1983. State-of-the-art shaft
sinking at Cooke No.3. World Mining Magazine,
February 1983, p. 31-33
ROSCOE, R. 1983. In-House Shaft Sinking, Past
and Present, at St.Joe Minerals New Lead Belt,
Southeast Missouri. SME-AIME Annual Meeting,
1983, Paper No. 83-58

We need to recognize that we must continually McLAUGHLIN, B. 2000. Productivity from Deep
improve. Each successful project should be a Shafts, Using Technology to Lower the Rope
platform to build from. Each difficult project will Safety Factor,
provide lessons for future success. We need to
develop a knowledge base and some continuity WAKEFIELD,T.E., WALLACE,I.J., & DAVIDTSZ,
to benefit from past experiences. With the volume P.J. 2000. Rope experience gained from sinking
of work in South Africa, there is a wealth of the South Deep main and ventilation shafts. Mine
knowledge and experience that will be of benefit Hoisting 2000 SAIMM, p. 139-146
to Canadian operators in the future. And as DOUGLAS, A.B. 1989. Planning for Productivity
South Africa continues to mechanize operations, in Shaft Sinking. SAIMM Colloquium: Shaft
Canadian operators can make contributions as Sinking: Current Practices & Future Trends,
well. With every project we gain experience and Paper 11
see new techniques and methods that may help
us to operate safer, faster and more efficiently. RIEMER,J. 1907. Shaft Sinking in Difficult Cases
(Translated by J.W. Brough), Published by
The Art of Shaft Sinking is the successful Charles, Griffin and Company Ltd. London
combination of engineering and experience with England.
an understanding of the human element of the
work. It comes from a passionate pursuit of
accident free workplaces. It comes from a pride
in the work we do and a realization that we are
among the few in the world that can do this.
Knowing that despite all of our excellent systems
and designs, that the perfect process won’t be
successful without the people who believe in
what we are doing and are committed to
achieving our goals.

References
STRINGER, N., 2002. Ultra Deep Shaft Sinking,
Presentation to the Institute of Civil Engineers –
London. Unpublished

THOMPSON, M,H., 1970. Shaft sinking and

equipping techniques. SAIMM Hoisting
Conference, Paper 2

DOUGLAS,A.B. and PFÜTZENRUETER, F.R.B.

1989. Overview of current South African vertical
concrete shaft construction practices. IMM Shaft
Engineering, p. 137-154

CHAMBER OF MINES of SOUTH AFRICA,

2001. South African Mining Industry Fact Sheet
2001

BOUCHARD, G. 2000. Mineral Exploration,

Deposit Appraisal and Mine Complex
Development Activity in Canada. Canadian
Minerals Yearbook 2000. Chapter 3,