SHAFT SINKING COST ANALYSIS by John Edward Dowis a Thesis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Shaft sinking cost analysis Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Dowis, John Edward, 1940- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 07/10/2021 15:22:50 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/318302 SHAFT SINKING COST ANALYSIS by John Edward Dowis A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE WITH A MAJOR IN MINING ENGINEERING In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1 9 7 2 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable,without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR This thesis has been approved on the date shown below: WILLARD C. flLACY Date Professor, Mining and Geological Engineering PREFACE Upon leaving Montana School of Mines in 1963 with a B , So degree in Mining Engineering, the author1s interest centered on the facets of property evaluation and mine development♦ Between 1963 and 1966, employment in a 300 tons-per^day uranium property and eventually the 40,000 tons-per-day operation at San Manuel, Arizona, provided experience and practical contact with the wide scope of problems and their extreme variability« At the smaller operation, practical experience in shaft sinking was the highlight of achieve ment. Of particular significance at San Manuel, the author was moved through each mining department in a manner allowing detailed inquiry ) into the "whys" and "what fors,! behind their development planning. Shaft construction was recognized as one of the most coim^on "bottle necks" relative\ to meeting production quotas from underground mine layouts. , . It soon became evident that taking temporary leave from employ ment would allow placing this initial experience into perspective. Entering graduate school provided an environment for combining ex perience with academic inquiry, and shaft sinking was chosen as the thesis subject. In 1967, employment by the U . S . Atomic Energy Commission, Mining Division, provided the necessary cooperation for thesis comple tion in conjunction with on-the-job responsibilities. Through personal contacts with industry, data accumulation began in 1968. iii iv Computer programming and conversion to handle data preparation, regression analysis, and nomographic presentation was a continuing effort since 1967• Data contributors wish to remain anonymous« In this situation it will have to suffice to say that only through the cooperation of private industry and the U.S.A.E.G. Mining Division was such an in teresting array of data made available for analysis. The author had an idea; gained support from Mining Division management; borrowed ' analytical procedures through suggestions by faculty advisors; imposed his. programming inadequacies on fellow employees; and received patience and understanding at home. Though presented under the author's name, there are many who can accept acknowledgment and gratitude. Those on my thesis committee are Dr. W. C. Lacy3 Dr. J . F . Abel, and J . C. Dotson. TABLE OF CONTENTS •Page LIST OF TABLES . ... .•. .... .... vii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS .......... .......... x ABSTRACT . .......... xii 1. INTRODUCTION .......................... 1 2. SHAFT SINKING BACKGROUND .................... 6 South African Influence on North American Shaft Sinking .......... 6 Conventional Sinking vs. Drilled Shafts .......... 10 Shaft Sinking by a C o n t r a c t o r ..................... 16 3. THE.ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK OF SHAFT PLANNING . .... 19 It. MODEL ANALYSES OF CONVENTIONAL SINKING . ............ 23 Total Cost Per Foot of Shaft and Stations ......... 2h Labor Distribution in the Sinking Cycle UO Detailed Labor Analysis for One District .......... It5 Detailed Labor and Materials for One Shaft ......... 6l The Models in Retrospect ............ 99 5. CONCLUSION ............................ 102 APPENDIX A — NOMOGRAPH FOR BOTTOM CREW DRILL AND BLAST MAN-HOURS PER FOOT (COEUR D' ALENE DATA) .......... 108 APPENDIX B — NOMOGRAPHS FOR BOTTOM CREW MUCK MAN-HOURS PER FOOT (COEUR D' ALENE DATA) ............... 110 APPENDIX C — NOMOGRAPHS FOR TOTAL LABOR PLUS SUPERVISION (PERCENT OF TOTAL SHAFT COST) COEUR D' ALENE DATA ..... 113 APPENDIX D — NOMOGRAPHS FOR BOTTOM LABOR PLUS SUPERVISION (PERCENT OF TOTAL SHAFT COST) COEUR D* ALENE DATA ..... Il6 v TABLE OF CONTENTS — Continued ' Page APPENDIX E -- NOMOGRAPHS FOB TOTAL MAN-HOURS PER FOOT ("X"-SHAFT DATA) . ....... ........... 119 APPENDIX F — NOMOGRAPHS FOR CUBIC YARDS OF CONCRETE PER 7-FOOT POUR ("X'-SHAFT DATA) .............. 133 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................... lk2 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Shaft Sinking Chronology .. ' . 4 2. Data from Shafts Accessing Sandstone Type Uranium Deposits .... .......... ............ 25 3. Model Analysis — Dollars Per Foot of Shaft (including Stations and Pockets) . .......... 28 k. Correlation Matrix — Dollars Per Foot of Shaft (Including Stations and Pockets) .... 39 5. Labor Distribution for the Sinking Cycle in General .... kl 6. Residuals Summary as an Indication of Model E x i s t e n c e .............. kk 7. Model Analysis Drill and Blast (Percent of Cycle Man-Hours) ............ .......... .... k6 8. Correlation Matrix — Drill and Blast (Percent of Cycle Man-Hours) . ........... kj 9. Model Analysis — Drill and,Blast (Man-Hours Per Foot) ........................ k8 10. Correlation Matrix — Drill and Blast (Man-Hours Per Foot) . ........ ................ k9 11. Model Analysis — Mucking (Percent of Cycle Man-Hours).................. 50 12. Correlation Matrix — Mucking.(Percent of Cycle Man-Hours) .............. .............. 51 13. Model Analysis — Mucking (Man-Hours Per Foot) ...... 52 lk„ Correlation Matrix — Mucking (Man-Hours Per Foot) .... .53 15. Model Analysis— Lining and Fittings (Percent of Cycle Man-Hours). ........ .... 5k vii LIST OF TABLES — Continued Table Page 16. Correlation Matrix — Lining and Fittings (Percent of Cycle Man-Hours) . 55 17. Model Analysis — Lining and Fittings (Man-Hours Per Foot) ........... ......... 56 18 . Correlation Matrix — Lining and Fittings (Man-Hours Per F o o t ) ............ 57 19. Coeur d* Alene Shaft D a t a .......... 58 20. Model Analysis — Bottom Crew Drill and Blast Man-Hours Per Foot ................................. ^ 62 21. Correlation Matrix— Bottom Crew Drill and Blast Man-Hours Per Foot ............ 64 22. Model Analysis — Bottom Crew Mucking Man-Hours Per Foot ............. 65 23. Correlation Matrix — Bottom Crew Mucking Man-Hours Per Foot ...................... 67 24. Model Analysis — Total Labor Plus Supervision (Percent of Total Shaft Cost) ............ 68 25. Correlation Matrix — Total Labor Plus Supervision (Percent of Total Shaft Cost) . .............. 70 26. Model Analysis — Bottom Labor Plus Supervision (Percent of Total Shaft Cost) ............ 71 27. Correlation Matrix — Bottom Labor Plus Supervision (Percent of Total Shaft Cost) . .......... 73 28. "X" Shaft Data ...................... 75 29. Model Analysis — Total Excavating Man-Hours Per Foot . 89 30. Averages of Variables at "X" Shaft for Each Rock Type ........................ 90 31. Correlation Matrix — Excavating Man-Hours Per Foot ........................ 9.4 LIST OF TABLES — Continued Table 32. Model Analysis — Cubic Yards of Concrete Per 7-Foot Pour ................ 33. Correlation Matrix Cubic Yards of Concrete Per 7-Foot Pour ................. 3k. General Cause-and-Effect Summary in Shaft Sinking E c o n o m i c s .......................... LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Plot of Percent Labor versus Percent Materials for Rectangular Shafts .................. 11 2. Labor and Materials Cost Indexes for the Construction Industry . ............. 12 3. Dollars Per Foot Model Selection .......... 29 U. Dollars Per Foot Nomographs ................ 31 5. Bottom Crew Drill and Blast Man-Hours Per Foot Model Selection ....... ................ ....... 63 6. Bottom Crew Mucking Man-Hours Per Foot Model Selection . 66 7. Total Labor Plus Supervision (Percent of Total Shaft Cost) .......... .......... 69 8. Bottom Labor Plus Supervision (Percent of Total Shaft C o s t ) .......... 72 9- Shift Report Form for Circular Concrete Shaft ........ 84 10. Shift Report Form for Rectangular Shaft ........... 85 11. Example Time Sheet Illustrating How It Is to Be Filled Out . ............ 86 12. Excavating Man-Hours Per Foot Model Selection ........ 93 13. Cubic Yards of Concrete Per 7-Foot Pour Model Selection ....................... 97 14. Bottom Crew Drill and Blast Man-Hours Per Foot Nomograph (Coeur d* Alene Data) ............ 109 x xi LIST