Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Raise boring, especially large diameter raise boring of holes in excess of 3.66 metres diameter, remains one of the
newer excavation methodologies available for vertical development and continues to be developed and refined at
a rapid pace. Although reamed holes had been achieved by engineers such as Bade in 1949 using a rope winch, a
boring unit and a pulley over the hole in order to remove the requirement for men to enter the hole during
excavation, it was the development of the Cannon / Robbins raise drills in the late 1950s that gave us the
forerunners of today’s raise drills with thrust for the reamer head supplied through a drill stem, from the unit on
an upper level.
In general raise boring key excavation activities consist of drilling a pilot hole from surface to the destination level,
or between levels. This hole is then widened to the final diameter by a reaming head which is attached to the drill
string and uses the pilot for guidance. It is drawn along the path of the pilot whilst rotating to cut the rock. The
configuration may be such that the pilot is drilled upwards and then reamed upwards, piloted upwards and then
reamed downwards or piloted downwards and reamed upwards (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 – Raise boring possible modes of operation
For large diameter raise boring, the method is to pilot drill from the top horizon down to the breakthrough level
and then attach the reaming head at the bottom horizon and ream upwards back towards the raise drill which
typically spans the hole sitting on beams on a specially constructed collar.
It is possible to create larger openings in softer ground formations than in hard rock, but the length of the hole and
its final application will likely be very different and falls outside the scope of this paper. The main applications for
large diameter raise bores in our definition of hard rock, that is rock with a uniaxial compressive strength (UCS)
greater than 150MPa, are: ventilation openings; access for movement of men or materials; production hoisting;
speciality civils excavations.
These applications are driven by specific needs and in hard rock, it can reasonably be argued that for most
applications of non‐horizontal development, raise boring with perfectly cylindrical shafts and smooth walls offers a
host of cost and time saving benefits over conventional development methods with faster advance rates; less
disturbance of the rock structure; decreased airflow resistance; reduced labour cost; and greater safety for the
operating personnel by putting them in a safer environment. With long, large diameter raisebores now feasible,
these advantages are merely exaggerated for similar set‐ups to their smaller cousins.
In mining, typical raise bore applications include ventilation shafts, plus ore and waste passes. The advent of
reliably constructing large diameter raise bore shafts opens the horizons for extra large ventilation (exhaust or
fresh air) raises to rapidly be commissioned to serve whole new mine or sections of development. When combined
with the drilling accuracy now being obtained, the extension of the limits for borehole hoisting systems to new
depths and new conveyance running speeds are such that they have become feasible for being main production or
service accesses for mines, be it minewide or for new zones.
It is important to realize that rock hoisting via bored raises is not in or of itself a new concept and it is generally
accepted that it can provide a viable alternative to conventional sinking in the right situation, but the depths,
accuracies and diameters now possible open up many new possibilities in terms of the conveyances that can be
installed (capacity and running speeds), the depth the borehole hoisting system can reach and the hugely
advantageous mobilization, infrastructure, schedule and cost savings that may be realized, together with quality
and safety improvements in borehole hoisting over conventional sinking, including borehole slashing.
When considering borehole hoisting systems, it is important to realize that borehole deviation may most
commonly occur due to corkscrew deviation and overall hole directional alignment. As the reaming head by its
very nature must follow the path of the pilot hole, the final raise bored hole will likely result in undulations in the
borehole wall and directional deviation over the length of the hole, hence the importance for a vertical drilling
system.
The corkscrew deviation is due to the spiraling travel of the pilot hole bit as it travels downwards. Directional
deviation is usually related to rock structure and is generally is along a single axis in a linear transition. In studies
undertaken, the view has been that if this gradual deviation amounts to < 1% over the length of the hole, then this
should not limit hoisting speeds for a borehole hoisting system, but it may have an impact on designs and
therefore capital and operating costs as follows: guide connections and joints must be designed to accommodate
the deviation; some lateral loading from the skips will be transferred to the guide string which must be capable of
resisting these loads; such loading will slightly increase rope pull parameters; skips will require a more robust roller
system to accommodate these loads; increased wear should be expected on skips and guides; deflections rollers
may be required if ropes contact borehole walls; reduced rope life, especially if rope contacts wall; increased
maintenance and inspection requirements. With this in mind, for a given output, there could be a decrease in
hoisting capacity due to increased downtime for inspection and maintenance rather than hoisting speeds for a
given shaft diameter when considering borehole hoisting versus conventionally sunk shafts.
Notwithstanding this, for the appropriate selection of depth and diameter, a borehole shaft may offer significant
schedule and cost benefits over a conventional sink.
For civils applications, raise bores have typically been used for hydro scheme penstocks or surge chambers; mid‐
tunnel ventilation shafts; redirection and retrieval of hydro water; nuclear waste storage; stormwater storage and
drainage; access for pipes; water inlets and outlets. With the recent trends in civils tunnels to satisfy public
demand for value with dual or multi‐purpose tunnel roles such as Kuala Lumpur’s SMART scheme that combines
vehicular tunnels with stormwater drainage, then the ability to provide long, large diameter openings, offers up a
whole new host of possibilities to designers. The use of large diameter raise bores as secondary access to
accelerate works directly or indirectly by ventilation or egress provision are just two possible examples.
LARGE DIAMETER HARD ROCK RAISE BORING, NOW AND THEN
Throughout North America, in hard rock mining, large diameter raise boring has been thought of as 3.04 metre or
3.66 metre diameter holes, up to 300 metres deep. When considering large diameter hard rock raise boring today,
we now classify it as holes typically over 5.49 metres in diameter. In addition, lengths in excess of 1,000 metres can
now be considered in this size range.
Figure 2 – Largest Completed Single Pass Bore Shafts
Ground
Year Location Length m Dia. Machine Type MPa
1986 Deelkraal – RSA 1036 6.1 HG 330 Norite 220
2010 Cadia Shaft – AUS 930 6 HG 330 Volcanics 210
1988 Frank Shaft – RSA 1033 5.8 HG 330 Norite 220
1997 Phalaborwa ‐ RSA 923 5.7 HG 330 ? ?
1998 Amandulbult – RSA 877 5.52 HG 330 Norite 220
1999 Impala 11 – RSA 784 5.8 HG 330 Norite 220
1998 Impala 1 – RSA 965 5.1 HG 330 Norite 220
2008 Gwalia – AUS 800 5.52 HG 330 Basalt 200
1993 Turffontein – RSA 1102 4.5 HG 330 Norite 220
2007 Red Lake ‐ CAD 694 5.52 123R Basalt 180
Figure 2 shows the worldwide register for successfully completed single pass large diameter raise bores based
upon our criteria. Of those listed, the Turffontein raise falls slightly below the large diameter envelope, but its long
length warrants its inclusion.
The key requirements for the raise drill are its ability to transfer thrust and torque through the drill string to the
pilot bit and the reaming head, with the drill components and collar being designed to accommodate the
corresponding reactive forces. To put these requirements into context and to build a rough specification for a large
diameter hard rock raise drill, we can consider a raise 1,000 metres long, 6 metre excavated diameter in 150 MPa
UCS rock:
Thrust requirements – the thrust required to overcome the dead weight of all of the drill string, plus the reamer
and the cutter loading required to fracture the rock.
Weight of the drill string over 1,000 metre @ 500 kilograms per metre = 500 tonnes
Weight of the reamer and derrick = 45 tonnes
Cutter loading with 36 # cutters @ 10 tonnes each = 360 tonnes (3,530kN)
Thrust required = 905 tonnes (8,875 kN)
Torque requirements – the torque is the rotational force required to overcome the torsion in the drill string and
components to allow the cutters on the reamer to traverse the face and cut the rock when the torque is applied.
Generally the torque requirements increase as the load on each cutter increases, as the diameter of the raise
increases and as the angle of the raise increases away from vertical, which is one reason why large diameter raise
bores are often driven vertical – that and planned end use.
The formula used below is based upon historical data and the Tamrock torque formula.
M = C x f x T x (D/2) x √P
C= friction factor of the cutters (usually 0.05)
f= torque factor of the reaming head (0.8 historically)
T= total net thrust of reaming head (kN)
D= reaming head diameter in metres
P= penetration in mm per revolution
So for our example of a 6 metre diameter raise being reamed with 10 tonne cutter loading;
M = 0.05 x 0.8 x 3,530 x (6/2) x √1.44 = 509 kNm torque required
So for the case of a 1,000m long raise of 6 metre diameter through rock of 150 MPa UCS a raise drill has to be
capable of in the region of 900 tonnes of thrust and 500kNm of torque as a rough guideline. Note that these
figures are indicative only. Listed below in Figure 3 are the machines currently able to meet this specification and
the quantities of them available worldwide.
Figure 3 –Large diameter raise drills currently available, note thrust shown is optimal not peak
Torque Rod Diameter
Machines Thrust (Tonne) (kNm) (Limiting Factor) mm Available
Wirth HG380 1180 710 353 1
Wirth HG330 900 610 333 4
Atlas Copco 123RH 810 540 333 1
Atlas Copco 123DC 810 540 333 1
Strata 950RH 950 1000 333 and 356 5
Strata 850RH 850 1000 333 and 356 1
Redbore 100AC 1440 1000 368 1
The greatest availability of machines of this capability is currently the Strata 950 class of machine. Figure 4 shows
the operating envelope for this drill and compares it to some of the Robbins raise drills for reference.
Figure 4 – Comparison of standard operating capability Strata 950 class raise drills to Robbins 97R and 123R drills
6.5
5.5
Raise diameter (m)
4.5
Robbins 97R
4
Robbins 123R
3.5 Strata 950
2.5
2
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Length of raise (m)
Of course, many other balancing factors can come into play such as the drill pipe weight and the length of hole, the
ground conditions and standard operating procedures to determine the viability of the raise and the performance
rates that may be expected.
We have considered the UCS as this data is commonly readily available and provides a good gauge, but other
factors that can have an effect on drillability are abrasiveness, jointing and bedding, plus schistocity. Abrasiveness
is normally related to the silica content of the rock and highly abrasive rock can cause premature cutter wear,
which causes slower drilling rates as the carbide cutters become blunter and less effective with a corresponding
loss in efficiency. Depending upon the alignment, heavily jointed layers may be easier to drill as they provide for
more free faces aided failure, although this can cause the head to jam or cause problems for open hole stability if
the discontinuity alignment is unfavourable. Schists consist of mica layers interbedded with harder brittle rock. The
mica layers in schists may absorb some of the energy of the drilling process as a plastic deformation rather than
brittle failure, making the required fracture failure harder to achieve.
In addition, rotation speed should be considered to affect drilling rates linearly. Traditionally rotary speeds have
been set to limit the peripheral speed of the head to 100 metres per minute due to concerns over gauge wear on
the head, drill string wear and drill string failure, as well as bearing life. In this manner, rotational speed should be
closely observed on large diameter raise bores due to the greater distance covered by the components on the
circumference of the heads.
As mentioned in the introduction, the holes currently able to be bored are wider and deeper than ever before, but
in many cases they also have to be drilled more accurately than before and in‐hole drilling technology is
commonly used to ensure hole verticality is within limits. The accuracy of the pilot hole can be critical to the
success of the raisebore project, not just in terms of the drilling and reaming parameters, but also for the final end
use planned for the raise. In addition, a straight, vertical borehole results in less string friction against the borehole
wall. Currently, raise boring contractors are favouring the use of the self steering MICON Rotary Vertical Drilling
System (RVDS) that was developed in Europe for the continental deep drilling project from 1991 to 1993.
The MICON RVDS consists of three main components: the steering, energy and communication modules. Normal
flushing of the drilling medium powers an electric turbine within the tool which generates hydraulic power for
steering. The turbine also powers the electric data storage and sensor units. The units report the actual position
against the borehole axis and allows the steerable stabilizer to steer against non‐vertical drilling tendencies. Four
independent steering stabilizer ribs directly behind the drill bit are used to control vertical deviation. The stabilizer
is non‐rotating against the borehole. In addition, the use of the flush medium to power the turbine means that no
drill string rotation is required to activate and power the RVDS.
Communications from the unit are stored in the datalogger as well as transmitted to an internal encoding unit
which transfers the data into pressure signals which are pulsed from the tool to the raise collar where they are
decoded into digital signals which can be read and displayed on the operator’s readout in realtime.
MICON designed the RVDS to be a stand alone system from its conception and the tool is initially set‐up with the
actual target demands. From then on, the RVDS tools operate and make verticality adjustments themselves, with
position and verticality reported to the operator who can check for any malfunctions.
One completed pilot project for a large diameter raisebore project in Canada at Totten Mine that successfully used
the MICON RVDS featured a 830 metre long fresh air raise pilot that holed within 0.23 metres of the target, which
equates to an accuracy of >0.028%. .
CONSIDERATIONS FOR INCORPORATING LARGE DIAMETER RAISEBORING
POSSIBLE EXCAVATION METHODS
For holes in the size range being discussed, there are other access excavation methods available and these include:
traditional blind shaftsinking or shaft boring; mechanized raise climber excavation such as by Alimak; pilot and
slash with the pilot by mechanized raise climber or raise drill; large diameter raise boring. Each has distinct access
requirements, limitations and optimum conditions for consideration.
BLIND SHAFTSINKING
Blind shaftsinking can be contemplated for many different rock types, even poor ground and can accommodate
many different liner designs, shaft profiles and size ranges. Traditionally sunk by drill and blast using a temporary
or permanent headframe and hoisting set‐up, the muck is removed by buckets to the dump. Work is enabled by a
blasting set for timbered shafts or a galloway work stage for other shafts which provides a base of operations for
the equipment being utilized and the activities undertaken as part of the excavation and support cycle. Once
labour intensive, shaftsinking has seen much mechanization and has benefited from the introduction of shaft drill
jumbos versus handheld drilling. It allows for flexibility as lateral development from intermediate shaft stations
may take place if sinking below is protected by a bulkhead which can enable fast‐tracking of a project with either
strategic or financial benefits. If ground water is an issue, shaftsinking can tackle the issue by several means such
as pumping, grouting or freezing. It does not require any other access and can form the primary and initial access
to the underground location. Blindsinks may be curtailed or lengthened within the capabilities of the hoisting plant
if project requirements change. As they are sunk top down, if the shaft is shortened, you can still have a viable
facility with the option to extend at a later date. They also currently allow for wider and longer shafts than any
other method with potential shafts in the region of 11 metres in diameter and 3,000 metres deep in a single lift.
It requires significant capital investment in the necessary infrastructure such as hoist, headframe, sheaves and
galloway. It also requires very skilled, experienced labour, especially to help mitigate the inherently hazardous
nature of the work.
Blind shaftboring using a full face machine and oilfield drilling technology does not give any of the advantages of
traditional shaftsinking as the entire shaft is captive until the excavation is completed and it cannot deal with
newly encountered features or issues as readily at which time bentonite loss may become an operational concern
and environmental hazard.
MECHANIZED RAISE CLIMBER EXCAVATION
Typified by Alimak raise climbers, this can be a flexible approach for different shaft profiles, but it does require a
bottom access from which to drive the raise upwards to a breakthrough at the top horizon.
Similar to blind shaftsinking it can be used for different shaft profiles and ground conditions, although very poor
ground is typically a problem for worker safety and the integrity of the climber rail anchors to the wall. This may
also limit the viability of using an Alimak pilot and then benching or ringdrilling to the final diameter for the hole
integrity. Raises have been driven 690 metres long and slashed out to a final 6.10 metre diameter.
Generally advances rates will decline as the length of the raise is increased. For the larger diameters, the two pass
approach may be expensive due to a fairly slow overall advance, ground support install in the first pass which is
introduced to the muck circuit in the second pass and the set‐ups required for the benching or ringdrilling.
As it is excavated bottom up, the only way it can offer the same project scope change flexibility of a blindshaft for
shaft length changes is if it is carried out in legs of shaft, but this carries the disadvantage of requiring multiple set‐
ups and overhead protection.
This method also requires highly skilled and experienced labour, again due to the potentially hazardous nature of
the work.
PILOT AND SLASH
This refers to the piloting of a shaft by a medium diameter raisebore or Alimak raise and then benching
downwards with a fairly traditional shaft set‐up, the difference being that no cut is required for the shaft blast and
the blasted muck is allowed to fall downwards through the pilot where it is mucked at the lower horizon rather
than brought up through the shaft being sunk.
This method offers many of the benefits of blind shaftsinking, but it does have the drawback that it requires
existing access at the bottom horizon. It has the same disadvantages of investment in manriding conveyances and
headframes, hoists etc.
It is a two‐step approach and has the same disadvantages as the ringdrilled or benched Alimak option, whilst likely
costing more. From a safety point of view, it introduces the added hazard of a large open hole at the shaft bench
that must be made safe with a plug each cycle and if the pilot was driven by Alimak the pilot’s installed ground
support may exacerbate what is already a potential problem of the pilot hanging up with blasted muck.
It again requires very skilled, experienced labour.
LARGE DIAMETER RAISEBORING
This method is governed by the machine / hole length / hole diameter capabilities already discussed. It also
requires a bottom horizon access for installing the reamer head and mucking cuttings. It does not allow for mid‐
excavation access and cannot be used (typically) when ground water inflows will be an issue. As it is reamed
bottom up, the only way it can offer the same project scope change flexibility of a blindshaft for shaft length
changes is if it is carried out in legs of shaft, but this carries the disadvantage of requiring multiple set‐ups and
overhead protection.
The main advantages are speed of excavation, hole profile and operators are removed from the working face. In
this way, raisebore operators, whilst skilled, typically are a less variable commodity and do not command such a
fluctuating premium as raise or shaft miners. In addition, raise boring as a technique typically creates less
disturbance of the rock structure than other methods.
It is possible to ground support a raise bore hole post excavation by means of a workstage for the installation of
rockbolts or shotcrete if required, this would typically be a lighter set‐up than a comparable sinking galloway, or if
shotcrete only is adequate, by means of a robotic shotcrete arm that can be lowered down the hole further
keeping personnel out of the opening until it has been fully supported.
FOUR KEY QUESTIONS THAT MAKE LARGE DIAMETER RAISEBORING AN OPTION
If you wish to consider large diameter hard rock raise boring for your project or operation, then there are four key
questions that you need to be able to answer “yes” in order for it to be a viable option:
1. Is the size and length of the opening within current capabilities?
a. Broadly speaking, is your raise (or sections of raise) no longer than 1,000 metres long and no
bigger than 6.10 metres in diameter?
2. Is the ground suitable?
a. Is the rock suitable for excavation by raise bore in terms of sidewall stability and stand‐up time,
are water inflows not likely to be an issue?
3. Do you have access to the bottom?
a. Access is necessary to the lower horizon for installation of the reamer head.
4. Can you handle the waste generated underground?
a. On large diameter projects do not underestimate the mucking requirements and the possibilities
for delays that this can have. A 5.52m diameter ream may progress at 0.5 m per hour, which
generates approximately 12m3 in‐situ volume or 40t per hour of spoil to be mucked. This can be
significant.
INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR LARGE DIAMETER RAISEBORING
The nature of large diameter raise boring requires special consideration to many aspects that may not otherwise
be immediately apparent when one thinks of raise boring operations.
GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION
Ground conditions dictate what you can and cannot do and planning for those ground conditions is fundamental
for a successful project. Generally, the higher the rock quality designation (RQD), the better able in a vertical hole
will the rock be able to support itself, meaning less reaming stalls and less in‐hole hardware fatigue. The same
outcome can be said for lower compressive strengths and low silica contents.
Significant work has been carried out on the geotechnical risk analysis of large diameter raise bores by TR Stacey
and A McCracken relating specifically to the confidence on which the rock conditions are known and is based
around a modified Norwegian Geotechnical Institute’s Tunnelling Quality Index, Q rockmass classification value,
(Barton et al, 1974) for a raise drilled hole quality index to give weighting and consideration to wall stability and
suitability for raise boring. It is briefly summarized below.
The Tunnelling Quality Index, Q is obtained from the equation:
. .
Where:
RQD = Rock Quality Designation
Jn = Joint Set Number
Jr = Joint Roughness Number
Ja = Joint Alteration Number
Jw = Joint Water Reduction Factor
SRF = Stress Reduction Factor
From this:
gives an indication of rock block size
gives an indication of discontinuity shear strength
gives an indication of the active stress conditions surrounding the excavation
The Q‐system can be used to classify ground conditions and identify support requirements. Stacey and McCracken
proposed that conditions having a significant bearing on raise bore stability are that it is the shaft wall rather than
a tunnel roof driving final stability, plus the orientation of the shaft with respect to structural features and the
weatherability of the rock will be key. They proposed a wall adjustment, orientation adjustment and weathering
adjustment to the Q‐value that are applied in a cumulative fashion to the rating to obtain the raisebore quality
rating Qr:
Qr = Q . Wall Adjustment. Orientation Adjustment. Weathering Adjustment
Stacey and McCracken went further and developed a Raisebore Stability Ratio (RSR) that is analogous to Barton’s
Excavation Support Ratio (ESR) to relate the excavation function and life for the raise bored raise. Although the
raise bore length can be considered a contributory factor for sidewall failure as it can increase the incidence of
discontinuities encountered, the driving factor is the raise diameter. Stacey and McCracken correlated face
stability to the maximum unsupported span where:
spanmax = 2.RSR.Q0.4
Figure 5 (below) approximates the conclusions they drew for the relationship between the maximum unsupported
raise diameter and raise bore rock quality for an RSR of 1.3 which they suggest is appropriate for a ventilation
shaft, (after Figure 4, McCracken & Stacey, Geotechnical risk assessment for large diameter raise‐bored shafts,
1989).
With associated risk assessments based upon this work it is possible to correlate the local conditions to a chart
featuring service life in years with reliability and probability of failure for the raise bore excavation types: unlined
hoisting shaft, ventilation shaft and ore / waste pass. This approach carries the limitations of the Q system, but it
should be noted that the Q system is a rapidly evolving area of rock mechanics with many iterations and revisions
specific to application and McCracken and Stacey have built an entire risk assessment flowchart process around
the geotechnical aspects of a raise bore project, see section below on risk and mitigation.
The McCracken and Stacey method has gained considerable credibility and following, particularly in Australia,
although it has received some criticism relating to its predictions of stand‐up time and the shortcuts taken by some
geotechnical engineers applying the method as it remains fairly subjective. Nevertheless, it remains a useful,
methodical way to consider the hole stability parameters as part of a wider assessment.
ACCESS – SURFACE AND UNDERGROUND
Surface and underground worksite access can be crucial to the success of a raise bore project. Shift schedules and
blast windows can affect the availability of the cutting mucking crew and the transportation of the raise bore crew
to the worksite, especially for a raise being excavated from an existing level as this work may proceed around the
clock if not disrupted by the need to evacuate for central or sulphide blasts for example. Generally, once pilot
drilling or reaming is underway, best results are obtained if this work can be carried out as continuously as
possible.
For surface access, it should be remembered that the raise collar can be a significant excavation and construction
project in its own right and that rather than expending too much capital on this area and offsetting the benefits of
the raise bore selection, it may be prudent to relocate the collar location. The reaming heads can be another
significant logistical exercise to deliver to the project and the worksite. The reaming head for a 5.5m diameter raise
may weigh in the region of 37.5 tonnes and require two tractor trailers to transport it in sections on the highway.
EXCAVATIONS REQUIRED TO ENABLE THE WORK
Even with low profile raise drills, the chamber excavations underground can be considerable. Generally there are
two types of excavation underground required to facilitate raise bore works. The first, which is common to all
cases, is the pilot breakthrough chamber. The second is the raise drill set‐up chamber if a raise is planned between
two underground levels. The breakthrough chamber has to accommodate the removal of the pilot bit and
changeover to the reamer head, plus it must also allow safe mucking of the cuttings during reaming operations,
typically by means or a remotely operated scoop tram or a piloted scoop, but keeping the muck to the brow for
safety considerations in the event of a fall of ground or failure of the drill string. The lower pilot breakthrough
chamber is preferably configured with the raise set sideways from the drift such that the muck flows into the drift
at the angle of repose as from a drawpoint, facilitating straight on mucking without the requirement to turn in to
the muckpile.
Figures 6 & 7 show typical underground plans and sections for a large diameter raise bore set‐up. Not shown are
the sumps which may be located within 150 metres of the drill.
It can be seen that despite the reduced form factor of the drills, for an underground set‐up a significant excavation
is required for the drill chamber. Whilst by no means excessive, it is worth taking note of this from the start.
Figure 6, underground excavation and set‐up required for a large diameter raise bore, elevation view
Figure 7, underground excavation and set‐up required for a large diameter raise bore, plan view
SERVICES; POWER, WATER, SUMPS, LOGISTICS FOR RODS
Typically electrical power requirements may be in the order of 750kVA For remote locations, it would be normal
for the raise bore operator to provide their own power, although they may require servicing for fuel for their
generator.
During pilot drilling, water is required as a bailing medium in conjunction with compressed air typically delivered at
sufficient quantity and pressure to ensure all material is removed from the bottom of the hole and exhausted up
the annulus between the drill string and the pilot hole walls, rotary hydraulic drilling. Process water requirements
over 1,200 litres per minute of water may be required. This can be conserved by the use of decanting sumps to
conserve the water and re‐use insofar as it possible.
Figure 8 – cribbing with and without the drill rods
The raise drills and reaming heads may be the focus of much attention, but in reality, the drill rods are the most
expensive item in raise boring and are an important logistical consideration. Figure 8 illustrates typical cribbing to
be used as rod racks and also shows how much room 460 rods, each weighing 680 kilograms and costing over
US$10,000 apiece require. It is important not to underestimate the amount of space that will be taken up by the
drill string on a long hole as you are piloting down and as you remove the rods as you back ream.
As ever, a system is only as reliable as its weakest component and much care is taken to assess the condition of
rods and threads, both during operations and prior to beginning a new raise as the drill string is at the frontline of
all the reactive forces. Proper ongoing maintenance of the threads, together with a non‐destructive testing regime
are of paramount importance. Contractors typically also carry insurance in the event of a drill string failure.
WASTE HANDLING
As mentioned above, when reaming, a large diameter raisebore may generate in the region of 40 tonnes per hour
of cuttings to be mucked. Over the course of one day, this can be a considerable amount of extra muck to dispose
of, especially if the project is not a bulk operation.
For a mine, this may include not wishing to pay the energy costs to hoist this additional waste or a simple
restriction on waste hoisting windows to maximize ore hoisting. On a civils project, depending upon the size and
nature of concurrent underground excavation, the muck handling capabilities could easily be overwhelmed
resulting in a muck bound situation affecting the project critical path.
In some cases it may be necessary to mix the cuttings with other waste in order to be able to handle them
effectively in a muck handling circuit that is designed for a different size distribution that includes more coarse
particles.
SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS
One of the attractive aspects of raise boring of all sizes has been the fact that it removes the operatives from the
active face. Whilst it is true that exposure to hazards is reduced, the work is not without certain hazards.
Of these, the most dramatic are probably those associated with work on the bottom horizon such as installing the
reamer head and mucking below whilst reaming. Procedures can mitigate the risk by having offset muck stations,
always keeping the muck station full to the brow or utilizing remote mucking capabilities, but there will still be a
residual risk associated with head or pipe drops.
We have discussed how each drill pipe may weigh 500 kilograms as part of our thrust calculation. Considering
services above we noted the volume of the drill pipes for a long raise. These are heavy, circular (i.e. liable to roll)
items and care must be taken to ensure they are safely stacked and secured at all times. At the drill, generally
hydraulic rod handlers are used to lift the drill pipe off the racks and into place for operations.
Notwithstanding this, there are many potential pinch points associated with machinery moving in three
dimensions that must be considered and have access restricted to or be locked out for certain checks.
Other specific hazards include the high voltage electrics being used and the high pressure hydraulic circuits in
operation.
COST AND SCHEDULE CONSIDERATIONS
When considering a large diameter raise bore it is extremely important to consider the four key questions listed
above, but then carry out some early planning and scoping to further detail the requirements and issues specific to
your application. The initial scope definition of what you want and why you want it will help in determining if a
large diameter raise bore will meet your needs most effectively out of all the excavation options.
A key input to the scope definition is gathering of the required geotechnical and geological information. Another
key driver is will the lower horizon be developed in time to enable the reaming and will muck handling facilities be
able to handle the extra capacity. Although these points are covered generally in the four key questions, a look at
the actual status and forecast progress of any enabling works will be crucial.
Whilst scoping, it would be prudent to obtain a current budget price and schedule for the work from an
experienced operator. This will give a much better idea for set‐up and performance rates, together with aiding as a
check for any key factors you may have overlooked such as provision of services in the timeframe required. If
approaching a reputable contractor for budget pricing, it is good to explain why you require the hole as sometimes
they may offer an alternative that you had not considered for your facility.
It is not advised to attempt a large diameter raise bore with inexperienced crews and equipment on the borderline
of the capability envelope, so an added advantage of talking to a contractor is that they can likely give you some
indication of equipment availability as the gear is often in high demand and highly utilized, so your planned
timeframe for the raise may not be viable.
A good example may be if you had planned a deep ventilation shaft to service a new development zone, but found
the equipment would not be available to suit your project schedule. The flexibility and speed of a large diameter
raise bore may mean that an interim large diameter raise at a shallower horizon, followed by a deeper raise later,
or even multiple raises at the shallower horizon may suffice for the ventilation design instead.
RISK AND MITIGATION
As mentioned above, McCracken and Stacey proposed a geotechnical risk assessment process based upon an initial
risk assessment of the “raiseability” and stability, followed by a final assessment contingent on the tolerance to the
probability of failure of the raise bored shaft, deemed the acceptability of risk.
Their initial process is grouped under the banner of available data which includes the raise specification and
geotechnical information. This is followed by a preliminary evaluation of the major features, variability in rock
strength and structure, stability, boreability and inflows. The assessment of these factors determines the
compatibility of the raise to the ground conditions. Additional data such as site specific investigations may be
required to further determine the suitability.
If the risk proves unacceptable, it may be necessary to relocate the raise, amend the specification (diameter) or
possibly choose a different method. If the risk is acceptable, then when the raise is being piloted and reamed, data
should be collected to feedback to future risk analysis for similar raises.
When considering the final risk analysis, the probability of failure, end use of the holes and its planned service life
must all be considered. If the raise is to be ground supported or lined, then these factors become less crucial as the
stability is limited to the excavation period only.
From Australia, the New South Wales (NSW) Department of Primary Industries has produced an extremely
comprehensive Guideline for Raiseboring Operations (June 2003). The included Technical Reference Material For
Raiseboring Operations is designed to be a “fundamental input into any risk assessment process associated with
the planning, design, contract development, site establishment and completion of a raiseboring project”. A
working group of raisebore operators was established by the NSW Chief Inspector of Mines to develop the
guidance material and it details issues to be considered, plus corresponding notes and possible controls for all
activities associated with a raisebore project and is also a very comprehensive reference.
In terms of operational risk mitigation, two important factors are to carry out the proper planning and analysis
described above, plus to ensure you engage an experienced operator to construct the raise. In the event of a
catastrophic failure, such as damage to or loss of the drill string, then having capacity to draw upon replacements
or alternates can prove invaluable as there is a finite supply of compatible and suitable drill pipe available, with
long lead times for the manufacture of new replacements.
As mentioned, the end use of the hole and how critical verticality is will play a big factor in the risk assessment.
Special tooling such as the fore mentioned MICON RVDS system will be required for the pilot hole. The cost of
using such methods is much less than the schedule delay and direct costs associated with a critical raise that is
outside tolerances, or re‐drilling the pilot, potentially more than once, until the precision specified is achieved.
From the perspective of a raise bore operator, many equipment failure risks may be mitigated by routine
replacement in a planned preventative maintenance manner of high moment parts that are in tension, such as the
stem, stabilizers and floating box, before they fail. Key components may be switched out and sent for testing after
which if they continue to meet specification, they may be used, but it is important to track and log all the work
hours put on components so that you do not push the limit of their operating envelope or endurance.
Some operators have now taken a lead on this by acting as the contractual supplier for reaming heads and cutter
bits so that they can change them out according to their internally scheduled plans rather than being beholden to
a third party supplier who may try to push the endurance of the part.
PROJECT EXECUTION
PROCUREMENT STRATEGY
The fundamental question to be asked by a client here is whether they wish to attempt the raise with their own
resources or whether they wish to engage a contractor to carry out the work for them.
Whilst it is entirely possible for a client to carry out this work themselves, it would have to have the caveat that
they should have previously experienced personnel within their organization who have remained current with best
practices and developments, or they should recruit personnel with experience expressly for this work. In most
cases though, the high capital cost of the equipment and materials means than such an approach would require a
large quantity of holes to be viable. In addition, the client loses the traditional advantages of engaging a
contractor, which include the easy call on and off, no requirement to maintain continuity or re‐deploy resources
and keep on overhead when their specialized work is not available and competition to adjust performance and
prices within the market.
In general, the large diameter hard rock raise bores being described would be constructed by a specialized
contractor organization, this has so far been the case for successful large diameter raise bores in hard rock to date.
J.A.A. James has suggested some guidelines (Underground Mining Construction By Contract – Getting The Best For
Principal And Contractor, 1985) for clients and contractors relating to underground development contracts to
ensure that disputes are avoided and the full benefits of engaging a contractor are realized. The three main
reasons for engaging a contractor echo some of the comments above. James has stated a client will typically use a
contractor because they perceive:
1. The work can be done more expertly, cheaply and quickly than with their own resources.
2. The work does not warrant the capital expenditure on equipment, infrastructure and establishment of his
own team to carry out a one‐off job in a specialized field, e.g. shaft sinking
3. Engaging a contractor may allow development or exploratory work to be undertaken concurrently with
existing operations for expansion of production or smooth transition to maintain production.
CONTRACTOR SELECTION
If the decision is made to opt for a contractor to carry out the work, then on what basis may the contractor be
selected?
This is the qualifications process. It does neither the industry, nor the client, any favours to receive a lowball bid
from an inexperienced contractor who may struggle to successfully complete the work. Especially if this low
budget appears on bid evaluation forms and results in pressure to award on price comparison alone.
Potential tenderers for the work should be restricted based upon many criteria such as their capacity and
capabilities, financial backing, track record, safety statistics etc.
It has been suggested by James that important factors in assessing the suitability of a contractor are seen as:
1. Soundness of reputation for carrying out work to specification and schedule
2. Competence of key personnel within the contractor’s management
3. Back‐up resources, technical and administrative
4. Financial resources
5. Current construction activities
6. Industrial and safety track records
7. Dependence on and identity of subcontractors
TYPICAL COMMERCIAL FORMAT
The commercial format should tie‐in and clearly state the roles and responsibilities of all the preceding sections of
this paper. To refer once more to the NSW Guideline for Raiseboring Operations, which states in the section
Contract Development, that the required outcome is:
“A negotiated contract that is accurately scoped and includes systems that have identified and risk ranked
potential hazards with appropriate actions to control them. A contract which is fully scoped and completed prior to
project commencement, and is auditable throughout the contract term. A contract which minimises the likelihood
of surprises which may adversely affect the safety performance of either party.”
The main risks to this outcome are defined as:
1. the tender scope not identifying hazards adequately, so provisions have not been made in pricing which
could result in risk taking
2. an inadequate or non‐compliant safety plan
3. geological and geotechnical information is not available at the time or tender or is incomplete or
inaccurate
4. the contractor and / or client does not have adequately developed systems to manage health and safety
5. the schedule does not include provision for establishing and managing safety and health systems
The key considerations listed as relating to these risks are not having the scope prepared prior to contract
negotiations; ensure the contract scope addresses all identified risks; approve both parties health and safety plans
and include them in the contract.
In general, it is recommended that as a minimum the commercial format includes the schedule of prices, the work
schedule, the specification and scope statement. This is allows the project to be controlled in terms of cost, time,
quality, scope – safety falls within specification and is non‐negotiable for either party.
There are many different bespoke contract formats out there and some clients insist on their own format, but due
to the specialized nature of the work, many contractors have developed their own heads of agreement that are
specific to this type of work and have been honed over several projects and contract iterations to meet the specific
needs of the nature of large diameter raise boring.
As mentioned previously, the equipment is capital intensive and must be highly utilized to payback the investment.
As such, securing the equipment for the timeframe you require is paramount. Typically in a tender submission, a
contractor would reserve the right to re‐deploy the equipment to another contract if a firm commitment is not
received prior for the equipment.
Obviously, particular pricing details will vary by contract, but typically you may expect them to table general
mobilization, site mobilization and set‐up, drilling the pilot hole per metre rate, tripping out the drill rods, reamer
installation, reaming per metre rate, tear down, equipment rental for the period on a per day cost and general
demobilization. Extras such as verticality control, power generation, sumps and process water handling etc. will
likely be charged as per unit extras within the contract format. Tripping rods is included to agree a cost for when
the rods are tripped for any reason, such as pilot bit changes, reamer repairs etc. which would typically be a
ground conditions risk, which lies with the client who is in the best position to have knowledge of the ground type
surrounding their facility.
Different operators offer nuances on this format, but this generally covers the work in broadbrush terms. The pilot
rate is different to the reaming rate as it is faster so carries less direct and indirect costs, plus it also carries less
risk.
One very important point in the contract is that whilst the contractor will liaise and advise the client, the ultimate
design and application of the raise bored hole is the client’s responsibility, the contractor just provides the hole. As
such, typically the contractor will assign the responsibility for the ground conditions in and around the hole before,
during and after construction with the client.
A clearly defined scope is intrinsic to a well managed contract. A good contract will prominently detail the scope
such as the client and contractor, location and proposal number, the raises included and contract value. In addition
it should include details about the equipment or resources agreed to carry out the work and when it will arrive.
The expected (tendered) ground conditions should also be clearly stated, together with the authorized personnel
from each party and their limits of authority. Following this, it is a good idea to include definitions of the terms,
always for clarity, but especially if the client is new to raise boring or if the project is outside the contractor’s usual
territory or client base.
Due to the capital that is tied up in the equipment and rods, plus the high demand for same, it is usual to see
sections devoted to the performance of the works and any delays from either party. Raise boring is an activity that
it is very easy to measure progress for, so if the contract is weighted towards unit rates for advance as would be
typical, then the contractor has to have means to recover revenue for delays that are outside their ability to
control. Notwithstanding this, since the biggest cost is tied up in the equipment capital, should a delay occur that
impedes progress, it is easy for the contractor to temporarily demobilize labour for example and charge equipment
on a standby delay rate basis and a good contract should clearly define the parameters for this for both parties.
SUMMARY
Large diameter raise boring in hard rock, that is holes in excess of 5.50 metres in diameter, up to 1,000 metres long
through rock of UCS 150MPA, are now a viable alternative to traditional methods of sinking.
Holes of this class have been successfully completed in South Africa, Australia and Canada to date and further
holes are currently underway in North America.
The suggested four key questions should help clients determine if large diameter raise boring can meet their
requirements:
1. Is the size and length of the opening within current capabilities?
2. Is the ground suitable?
3. Do you have access to the bottom?
4. Can you handle the waste generated underground?
If you feel it could be a solution to implement on your project, then talk to experienced operators to work with
you to gain an understanding of how you may successfully use this approach.
REFERENCES
Encyclopedia of Tunnelling , Mining and Drilling Equipment; B.Stack, 2002
Raiseboring in Mining & Construction; Atlas Copco, 2008
The Raise Boring Handbook (2nd edition); Atlas Copco Robbins, 1997
MICON RVDS product brochure
Atlas Copco Raise Drill, Robbins 123R, technical specifications brochure
Atlas Copco Raise Drill, Robbins 97R, technical specifications brochure
Cementation Canada Adds To Its Raise Drill Fleet; Cementation Canada Inc. press release, 18th November, 2009
Guideline for Raiseboring Operations; NSW Department of Primary Industries, 2003
Geotechnical risk assessment for large diameter raise‐bored shafts; A.McCracken & T.R. Stacey, 1989
Underground Mining Construction By Contract – Getting the best for principal and contractor; J.A.A.James, 1985
Large diameter vertical raise drilling and shaft boring techniques as an alternative to conventional shaft sinking
techniques; P.Ferreira, 2004
Conceptual Borehole Hoisting Study; Cementation Canada Inc. for RUC Mining Contractor PTY Ltd, 2009
Stability of Raisebored Shafts; AMC Consultants article, 2006
SME Mining Engineering Handbook; 2nd Edition, Volume 2, 1992