Development of Mines (Continued).

Shape of Shafts.—Shafts may be round or rectangular.[*] Round vertical shafts are largely applied to coal-mines, and some engineers have advocated their usefulness to the mining of the metals under discussion. Their great advantages lie in their structural strength, in the large amount of free space for ventilation, and in the fact that if walled with stone, brick, concrete, or steel, they can be made water-tight so as to prevent inflow from water-bearing strata, even when under great pressure. The round walled shafts have a longer life than timbered shafts. All these advantages pertain much more to mining coal or iron than metals, for unsound, wet ground is often the accompaniment of coal-measures, and seldom troubles metal-mines. Ventilation requirements are also much greater in coal-mines. From a metal-miner's standpoint, round shafts are comparatively much more expensive than the rectangular timbered type.[**] For a larger area must be excavated for the same useful space, and if support is needed, satisfactory walling, which of necessity must be brick, stone, concrete, or steel, cannot be cheaply accomplished under the conditions prevailing in most metal regions. Although such shafts would have a longer life, the duration of timbered shafts is sufficient for most metal mines. It follows that, as timber is the cheapest and all things considered the most advantageous means of shaft support for the comparatively temporary character of metal mines, to get the strains applied to the timbers in the best manner, and to use the minimum amount of it consistent with security, and to lose the least working space, the shaft must be constructed on rectangular lines.

[Footnote *: Octagonal shafts were sunk in Mexico in former times. At each face of the octagon was a whim run by mules, and hauling leather buckets.]

[Footnote **: The economic situation is rapidly arising in a number of localities that steel beams can be usefully used instead of timber. The same arguments apply to this type of support that apply to timber.]

The variations in timbered shaft design arise from the possible arrangement of compartments. Many combinations can be imagined, of which Figures 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are examples.

The arrangement of compartments shown in Figures 9, 10, 11, and 13 gives the greatest strength. It permits timbering to the best advantage, and avoids the danger underground involved in crossing one compartment to reach another. It is therefore generally adopted. Any other arrangement would obviously be impossible in inclined or combined shafts.

Size of Shafts.—In considering the size of shafts to be installed, many factors are involved. They are in the main:—

It is not to be assumed that these factors have been stated in the order of relative importance. More or less emphasis will be attached to particular factors by different engineers, and under different circumstances. It is not possible to suggest any arbitrary standard for calculating their relative weight, and they are so interdependent as to preclude separate discussion. The usual result is a compromise between the demands of all.

Certain factors, however, dictate a minimum position, which may be considered as a datum from which to start consideration.

First, a winding engine, in order to work with any economy, must be balanced, that is, a descending empty skip or cage must assist in pulling up a loaded one. Therefore, except in mines of very small output, at least two compartments must be made for hoisting purposes. Water has to be pumped from most mines, escape-ways are necessary, together with room for wires and air-pipes, so that at least one more compartment must be provided for these objects. We have thus three compartments as a sound minimum for any shaft where more than trivial output is required.

Second, there is a certain minimum size of shaft excavation below which there is very little economy in actual rock-breaking.[*] In too confined a space, holes cannot be placed to advantage for the blast, men cannot get round expeditiously, and spoil cannot be handled readily. The writer's own experience leads him to believe that, in so far as rock-breaking is concerned, to sink a shaft fourteen to sixteen feet long by six to seven feet wide outside the timbers, is as cheap as to drive any smaller size within the realm of consideration, and is more rapid. This size of excavation permits of three compartments, each about four to five feet inside the timbers.

[Footnote *: Notes on the cost of shafts in various regions which have been personally collected show a remarkable decrease in the cost per cubic foot of material excavated with increased size of shaft. Variations in skill, in economic conditions, and in method of accounting make data regarding different shafts of doubtful value, but the following are of interest:—

In Australia, eight shafts between 10 and 11 feet long by 4 to 5 feet wide cost an average of $1.20 per cubic foot of material excavated. Six shafts 13 to 14 feet long by 4 to 5 feet wide cost an average of $0.95 per cubic foot; seven shafts 14 to 16 feet long and 5 to 7 feet wide cost an average of $0.82 per cubic foot. In South Africa, eleven shafts 18 to 19 feet long by 7 to 8 feet wide cost an average of $0.82 per cubic foot; five shafts 21 to 25 feet long by 8 feet wide, cost $0.74; and seven shafts 28 feet by 8 feet cost $0.60 per cubic foot.]

The cost of timber, it is true, is a factor of the size of shaft, but the labor of timbering does not increase in the same ratio. In any event, the cost of timber is only about 15% of the actual shaft cost, even in localities of extremely high prices.

Third, three reasons are rapidly making the self-dumping skip the almost universal shaft-vehicle, instead of the old cage for cars. First, there is a great economy in labor for loading into and discharging from a shaft; second, there is more rapid despatch and discharge and therefore a larger number of possible trips; third, shaft-haulage is then independent of delays in arrival of cars at stations, while tramming can be done at any time and shaft-haulage can be concentrated into certain hours. Cages to carry mine cars and handle the same load as a skip must either be big enough to take two cars, which compels a much larger shaft than is necessary with skips, or they must be double-decked, which renders loading arrangements underground costly to install and expensive to work. For all these reasons, cages can be justified only on metal mines of such small tonnage that time is no consideration and where the saving of men is not to be effected. In compartments of the minimum size mentioned above (four to five feet either way) a skip with a capacity of from two to five tons can be installed, although from two to three tons is the present rule. Lighter loads than this involve more trips, and thus less hourly capacity, and, on the other hand, heavier loads require more costly engines. This matter is further discussed under "Haulage Appliances."

We have therefore as the economic minimum a shaft of three compartments (Fig. 9), each four to five feet square. When the maximum tonnage is wanted from such a shaft at the least operating cost, it should be equipped with loading bins and skips.

The output capacity of shafts of this size and equipment will depend in a major degree upon the engine employed, and in a less degree upon the hauling depth. The reason why depth is a subsidiary factor is that the rapidity with which a load can be drawn is not wholly a factor of depth. The time consumed in hoisting is partially expended in loading, in acceleration and retardation of the engine, and in discharge of the load. These factors are constant for any depth, and extra distance is therefore accomplished at full speed of the engine.

Vertical shafts will, other things being equal, have greater capacity than inclines, as winding will be much faster and length of haul less for same depth. Since engines have, however, a great tractive ability on inclines, by an increase in the size of skip it is usually possible partially to equalize matters. Therefore the size of inclines for the same output need not differ materially from vertical shafts.

The maximum capacity of a shaft whose equipment is of the character and size given above, will, as stated, decrease somewhat with extension in depth of the haulage horizon. At 500 feet, such a shaft if vertical could produce 70 to 80 tons per hour comfortably with an engine whose winding speed was 700 feet per minute. As men and material other than ore have to be handled in and out of the mine, and shaft-sinking has to be attended to, the winding engine cannot be employed all the time on ore. Twelve hours of actual daily ore-winding are all that can be expected without auxiliary help. This represents a capacity from such a depth of 800 to 1,000 tons per day. A similar shaft, under ordinary working conditions, with an engine speed of 2,000 feet per minute, should from, say, 3,000 feet have a capacity of about 400 to 600 tons daily.

It is desirable to inquire at what stages the size of shaft should logically be enlarged in order to attain greater capacity. A considerable measure of increase can be obtained by relieving the main hoisting engine of all or part of its collateral duties. Where the pumping machinery is not elaborate, it is often possible to get a small single winding compartment into the gangway without materially increasing the size of the shaft if the haulage compartments be made somewhat narrower (Fig. 10). Such a compartment would be operated by an auxiliary engine for sinking, handling tools and material, and assisting in handling men. If this arrangement can be effected, the productive time of the main engine can be expanded to about twenty hours with an addition of about two-thirds to the output.

Where the exigencies of pump and gangway require more than two and one-half feet of shaft length, the next stage of expansion becomes four full-sized compartments (Fig. 11). By thus enlarging the auxiliary winding space, some assistance may be given to ore-haulage in case of necessity. The mine whose output demands such haulage provisions can usually stand another foot of width to the shaft, so that the dimensions come to about 21 feet to 22 feet by 7 feet to 8 feet outside the timbers. Such a shaft, with three- to four-ton skips and an appropriate engine, will handle up to 250 tons per hour from a depth of 1,000 feet.

The next logical step in advance is the shaft of five compartments with four full-sized haulage ways (Fig. 13), each of greater size than in the above instance. In this case, the auxiliary engine becomes a balanced one, and can be employed part of the time upon ore-haulage. Such a shaft will be about 26 feet to 28 feet long by 8 feet wide outside the timbers, when provision is made for one gangway. The capacity of such shafts can be up to 4,000 tons a day, depending on the depth and engine. When very large quantities of water are to be dealt with and rod-driven pumps to be used, two pumping compartments are sometimes necessary, but other forms of pumps do not require more than one compartment,—an additional reason for their use.

For depths greater than 3,000 feet, other factors come into play. Ventilation questions become of more import. The mechanical problems on engines and ropes become involved, and their sum-effect is to demand much increased size and a greater number of compartments. The shafts at Johannesburg intended as outlets for workings 5,000 feet deep are as much as 46 feet by 9 feet outside timbers.

It is not purposed to go into details as to sinking methods or timbering. While important matters, they would unduly prolong this discussion. Besides, a multitude of treatises exist on these subjects and cover all the minutiÆ of such work.

Speed of Sinking.—Mines may be divided into two cases,—those being developed only, and those being operated as well as developed. In the former, the entrance into production is usually dependent upon the speed at which the shaft is sunk. Until the mine is earning profits, there is a loss of interest on the capital involved, which, in ninety-nine instances out of a hundred, warrants any reasonable extra expenditure to induce more rapid progress. In the case of mines in operation, the volume of ore available to treatment or valuation is generally dependent to a great degree upon the rapidity of the extension of workings in depth. It will be demonstrated later that, both from a financial and a technical standpoint, the maximum development is the right one and that unremitting extension in depth is not only justifiable but necessary.

Speed under special conditions or over short periods has a more romantic than practical interest, outside of its value as a stimulant to emulation. The thing that counts is the speed which can be maintained over the year. Rapidity of sinking depends mainly on:—

The delays incident to general carrying of ore and men are such that the use of the main haulage engine for shaft-sinking is practically impossible, except on mines with small tonnage output. Even with a separate winch or auxiliary winding-engine, delays are unavoidable in a working shaft, especially as it usually has more water to contend with than one not in use for operating the mine. The writer's own impression is that an average of 40 feet per month is the maximum possibility for year in and out sinking under such conditions. In fact, few going mines manage more than 400 feet a year. In cases of clean shaft-sinking, where every energy is bent to speed, 150 feet per month have been averaged for many months. Special cases have occurred where as much as 213 feet have been achieved in a single month. With ordinary conditions, 1,200 feet in a year is very good work. Rock awkward to break, and water especially, lowers the rate of progress very materially. Further reference to speed will be found in the chapter on "Drilling Methods."

Tunnel Entry.—The alternative of entry to a mine by tunnel is usually not a question of topography altogether, but, like everything else in mining science, has to be tempered to meet the capital available and the expenditure warranted by the value showing.

In the initial prospecting of a mine, tunnels are occasionally overdone by prospectors. Often more would be proved by a few inclines. As the pioneer has to rely upon his right arm for hoisting and drainage, the tunnel offers great temptations, even when it is long and gains but little depth. At a more advanced stage of development, the saving of capital outlay on hoisting and pumping equipment, at a time when capital is costly to secure, is often sufficient justification for a tunnel entry. But at the stage where the future working of ore below a tunnel-level must be contemplated, other factors enter. For ore below tunnel-level a shaft becomes necessary, and in cases where a tunnel enters a few hundred feet below the outcrop the shaft should very often extend to the surface, because internal shafts, winding from tunnel-level, require large excavations to make room for the transfer of ore and for winding gear. The latter must be operated by transmitted power, either that of steam, water, electricity, or air. Where power has to be generated on the mine, the saving by the use of direct steam, generated at the winding gear, is very considerable. Moreover, the cost of haulage through a shaft for the extra distance from tunnel-level to the surface is often less than the cost of transferring the ore and removing it through the tunnel. The load once on the winding-engine, the consumption of power is small for the extra distance, and the saving of labor is of consequence. On the other hand, where drainage problems arise, they usually outweigh all other considerations, for whatever the horizon entered by tunnel, the distance from that level to the surface means a saving of water-pumpage against so much head. The accumulation of such constant expense justifies a proportioned capital outlay. In other words, the saving of this extra pumping will annually redeem the cost of a certain amount of tunnel, even though it be used for drainage only.

In order to emphasize the rapidity with which such a saving of constant expense will justify capital outlay, one may tabulate the result of calculations showing the length of tunnel warranted with various hypothetical factors of quantity of water and height of lift eliminated from pumping. In these computations, power is taken at the low rate of $60 per horsepower-year, the cost of tunneling at an average figure of $20 per foot, and the time on the basis of a ten-year life for the mine.

The size of tunnels where ore-extraction is involved depends upon the daily tonnage output required, and the length of haul. The smallest size that can be economically driven and managed is about 6-1/2 feet by 6 feet inside the timbers. Such a tunnel, with single track for a length of 1,000 feet, with one turn-out, permits handling up to 500 tons a day with men and animals. If the distance be longer or the tonnage greater, a double track is required, which necessitates a tunnel at least 8 feet wide by 6-1/2 feet to 7 feet high, inside the timbers.

There are tunnel projects of a much more impressive order than those designed to operate upper levels of mines; that is, long crosscut tunnels designed to drain and operate mines at very considerable depths, such as the Sutro tunnel at Virginia City. The advantage of these tunnels is very great, especially for drainage, and they must be constructed of large size and equipped with appliances for mechanical haulage.