{"id":12733,"date":"2026-06-25T14:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-06-25T14:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/northamericanmining.com\/?p=12733"},"modified":"2026-06-01T19:42:43","modified_gmt":"2026-06-01T19:42:43","slug":"the-shaft-under-pressure-debottlenecking-production-hoisting","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/northamericanmining.com\/index.php\/2026\/06\/25\/the-shaft-under-pressure-debottlenecking-production-hoisting\/","title":{"rendered":"The shaft under pressure: debottlenecking production hoisting"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Production hoisting systems are increasingly being pushed to and beyond their design limits. But the biggest throughput losses are rarely mechanical; they\u2019re operational.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

by Jonathan Rowland<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"Two
Two Jeto skips are loaded for delivery to an end user at the FKC \u2013 Lake Shore fabrication facility in Evansville, Indiana.
<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

All the familiar pressures of modern mining \u2013 deeper orebodies, rising production targets, tighter margins \u2013 converge underground on the shaft. Any interruption here translates directly into lost output. \u201cThe shaft and hoisting equipment are arguably the most critical link in connecting the orebody to the market,\u201d Josh Phillips of FKC \u2013 Lake Shore told North American Mining<\/em>. \u201cThorough planning from initial system layout and design to ongoing operations and maintenance practices is key to delivering reliable long-term shaft operations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the same time, production hoisting is increasingly being pushed towards its operating limits, and in many cases beyond the original design capacity, as noted by Francis Lacasse of ABB Process Industries. This means hoisting more material, more consistently, and with less tolerance for disruption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cSustaining elevated performance cycle after cycle puts pressure on every part of the system: higher suspended loads, tighter cycle times, and greater demands on mechanical and electrical components,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Under these conditions, reliability becomes paramount. \u201cDemand is heavily tied to ensuring the system operates continuously at optimum capacity,\u201d said Martin Lepage of Cementation, \u201cplacing significant pressure on planned and preventative maintenance.\u201d It is a theme that runs throughout: the gap between design and delivery is as much about operational discipline as it is about engineering. Closing it requires attention to every stage of the hoisting cycle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE THROUGHPUT EQUATION<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

At its simplest, hoisting throughput is a function of three variables: payload per cycle, hoisting speed, and total cycle time. \u201cCycle time is driven by acceleration and braking profiles, time spent in the creep zones, loading and discharge efficiency, and any delays in shaft traffic, maintenance operations, and unplanned downtime,\u201d explained ABB\u2019s Lacasse. \u201cDepth further influences performance by increasing travel times and rope mass.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Behind these headline variables sits a longer list of parameters that set the theoretical ceiling: shaft diameter, hoist type, available power, drive and control technology, the guide system, and the material-handling infrastructure. These may have been decided upon years or even decades ago, as FKC \u2013 Lake Shore\u2019s Phillips emphasized, and are not easily revisited. \u201cWhile a larger shaft could handle larger components, it may be cost-prohibitive, making the project financially unfavorable,\u201d he noted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A particularly common issue, noted Cementation\u2019s Ryan Payne, is a lack of adequate surge capacity on either side of the hoist. In many operations, buffer storage may amount to only a few skip loads. \u201cWithout sufficient buffering, the hoist becomes tightly coupled to the rest of the material handling system and must stop whenever another part of the process experiences an interruption,\u201d he explained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Phillips agreed, noting that some forward-looking operators have invested in underground bunker storage to decouple the hoist from upstream variability. \u201c<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While underground construction is expensive, the operator should be able to determine whether it would be advantageous to install a bunker system to offset the loss of conveyance,\u201d he said. \u201cHaving systems that are not wholly dependent on mechanical availability could pay dividends for the overall mine throughput.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Changes in ore grade are a less obvious but increasingly common throughput constraint, Phillips continued. As reserve quality declines, more raw material must be hoisted to yield the same amount of saleable product. The effect is a quiet erosion of the margin between hoisting capacity and production demand. Hoists are also frequently run below their design envelope to manage other risks, such as shaft guide alignment, further narrowing the available headroom, added Lacasse.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"A
A double-drum hoist installation showing the motor, drums, and braking system. As production demands intensify, every component must sustain performance cycle after cycle. Photo: ABB
<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

OPTIMIZING THE CYCLE<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The cycle itself is straightforward in principle: the skip is loaded underground, hoisted to the surface, dumped, and returned empty to be loaded again. \u201cIdeally, when the skip returns, a bin is preloaded to allow the skip to be filled by a controlled deluge of ore, properly metered to ensure the correct tonnage is loaded as quickly as possible,\u201d described FKC \u2013 Lake Shore\u2019s Phillips. Synchronizing loading and dumping \u2013 including the acceleration and deceleration profiles as the skip approaches each zone \u2013 can yield considerable savings in cycle time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In practice, however, each stage presents its own friction. Loading efficiency is critical but often under-studied, noted Cementation\u2019s Lepage. In many hard-rock operations, material sizing is performed at the surface due to the high cost of underground crushing infrastructure. Skips frequently handle large lumps that can slow loading and disrupt the planned cycle. \u201cThe design of the loading pocket chute and its interface with the skip bucket opening must be carefully evaluated to ensure the loading time assumed in the hoist duty cycle is achievable,\u201d he said, recommending validation through discrete element method (DEM) flow analysis where possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the discharge end, systems must enable rapid and complete emptying. \u201cAny restriction to material flow introduces delays and variability to the cycle,\u201d noted ABB\u2019s Lacasse. Phillips also highlighted downstream disruptions: a conveyor going offline, for instance, can cascade back through the system unless adequate surface buffer capacity is built into the design.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Skip sizing itself involves a series of trade-offs. Increasing payload per cycle is an obvious route to higher throughput, but larger skips increase the total suspended mass. This affects rope safety factors and may require modifications to the headframe and shaft, Lacasse observed. Phillips added that the skip body must be designed for a range of material densities rather than a single figure: too much freeboard results in dead weight being hoisted when denser material is loaded, wasting power and reducing throughput. Liner selection is another consideration, as the material must withstand both impact during loading and abrasion during flow. The choice depends on the specific ore characteristics and the operator\u2019s maintenance philosophy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

FKC \u2013 Lake Shore\u2019s patented JETO skip addresses several of these concerns by incorporating a mechanically actuated dump that uses a scroll plate to open the body and allow material to flow freely into the discharge chute. \u201cDesigned for fast, clean discharge, JETO skips use balance and weight distribution to minimize dead weight and reduce strain on shaft guides and hoist ropes,\u201d said Phillips. Available in capacities up to 60 tons, the skips are built to accommodate variable material conditions \u2013 an important consideration given the trade-offs around density and freeboard discussed above.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, Lacasse concluded, the key trade-off is between payload and cycle frequency. \u201cIncreasing load weight per trip can reduce overall throughput if it slows the cycle or introduces variability,\u201d he said. \u201cOptimization comes from treating skip size, loading, and discharge as a single system, designed to deliver consistent, high-frequency cycles.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MANAGING SHARED SHAFTS<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In many underground operations, the production hoist shares its shaft with service duties, moving personnel, equipment, and supplies. Protecting production throughput in this environment requires deliberate planning rather than ad hoc negotiation between competing demands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most effective solution, where feasible, is physical separation. Cementation\u2019s Lepage noted that a properly designed headframe and shaft steel layout, including a brattice partition between production and service compartments, can eliminate most, if not all, scheduling conflicts. Where full separation is not possible, structured scheduling becomes essential.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cBy defining clear production windows and grouping service activities into planned intervals, you can reduce random interruptions,\u201d said ABB\u2019s Lacasse.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Personnel movement is a particular pressure point. When the primary cage shares the shaft with the production skip, crew changes become a direct competitor for hoisting time. Phillips suggested that a double-deck cage can reduce the number of trips required per shift change, though retrofitting one may require reconfiguring the headframe or sump at the station level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Phillips also noted that, when the shaft is vertically integrated, it is generally not safe to work at the station level as equipment is being staged at the surface for lowering, unless protective provisions are in place. \u201cA protective shaft cover could be a wise investment, allowing a crew to perform maintenance underground while another crew is loading a deck at the surface,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lacasse added that real-time traffic management systems can further improve coordination by providing visibility of conveyance position, loading status, and demand. This allows operators to optimize sequencing and reduce idle time. The goal, he emphasized, is not to eliminate operational flexibility but to ensure that service requirements do not disrupt the production hoisting rhythm.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"Material
Material handling operations at Vale Base Metals\u2019 Totten Mine, Ontario. Photo: Cementation
<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

MAINTENANCE AS A THROUGHPUT STRATEGY<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A thread brought up by every contributor is the inseparability of maintenance and throughput, particularly as systems age and experience the wear and environmental degradation that follow. \u201cIt is inherent to push systems to the design limit,\u201d acknowledged FKC \u2013 Lake Shore\u2019s Phillips, \u201cbut we must appreciate that as something ages, it may need to be derated, inspected more frequently, and monitored for any change that could impact its operation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Performance is thus inextricably linked to reliability, placing increased emphasis on planned and preventative maintenance, added Cementation\u2019s Ryan Payne. Yet, in Payne\u2019s experience, maintenance is often overlooked as operations prioritize short-term production and ignore long-term pain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The broader question, Phillips observed, is one of maintenance philosophy. Some operators seek to maximize component life to control operating expenditure; others will sacrifice remaining life to reduce downtime. \u201cEither approach can work based on the market, conditions, and company philosophies,\u201d he said. \u201cAn answer may make sense today, but is wrong the next time the same situation is presented.\u201d What matters is that the decision is made deliberately, and informed by data and a full understanding of the system, rather than being made by default under pressure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Drilling into some specifics, the FKC \u2013 Lake Shore expert argued that an operation\u2019s spares strategy should begin during the design phase itself. \u201cIt may be feasible to set standards for specific items to maintain compatibility, such as motors and sheave clusters, where one spare could be utilized for multiple systems in the event of a failure,\u201d he said. This reduces critical inventory requirements while mitigating the risk that long lead times on specialized components will prolong unplanned downtime. Having spares on hand provides the flexibility to schedule a component change, send the removed part for rebuild, and keep the hoist running, rather than being forced into a reactive decision under production pressure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ABB\u2019s Lacasse reinforced the point from a supply chain perspective, noting that delays in maintenance, spare parts availability, or system upgrades can directly affect throughput. \u201cThis is driving increased focus on lifecycle planning, supply chain resilience, and the ability to respond quickly to operational issues,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"FKC
FKC \u2013 Lake Shore recently completed a 1,200 tph production system in Virginia, requiring more than 200ft of vertical excavation below mine level to accommodate the skip loading system.<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

LOOKING AHEAD<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

One area attracting growing attention is rope technology. Hybrid composite ropes offer high strength with reduced weight, as a potential step change. By reducing the proportion of the hoist\u2019s capacity consumed by the rope itself, these materials could liberate more payload capacity without requiring larger hoisting systems. Cementation\u2019s Lepage noted, however, that significant challenges remain before synthetic or hybrid ropes are ready for widespread adoption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the equipment side, Lepage argued that the North American preference for \u201cone skip, one rope\u201d drum hoists will increasingly give way to Blair multi-rope (BMR) configurations as mines pursue larger payloads at greater depths while maintaining the need for multi-level hoisting. \u201cThis is a well-known and mature technology for large service cages that can be more widely adopted for skips today,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Phillips, meanwhile, highlighted vertical conveyor belt technology as an advancing alternative. \u201cThese systems have proven to require less maintenance overall and could offer additional savings in the long run,\u201d he said, noting that both CAPEX and OPEX are generally lower when the application is suited to the technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The next step-change is unlikely to come from any single breakthrough. \u201cShaft and system design need to be considered as one,\u201d ABB\u2019s Lacasse concluded. \u201cImprovements in automation, real-time optimization, and predictive analytics will allow hoists to operate closer to their design limits with greater consistency \u2013 but only when combined with mechanical innovation and integrated system design.\u201d The pressures on the shaft are not going away. But the tons are there to be won, not through any single intervention, but through the disciplined accumulation of marginal gains across the entire hoisting system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MEET THE EXPERTS<\/strong>
Andy Cook is the Electrical Director at Frontier Kemper Constructors, Inc.
Francis Lacasse is the Cluster Manager for Mining and Materials in North America at ABB Process Industries.
Martin Lepage is the Senior Technical Lead Engineer for hoisting at Cementation.
Ryan Payne is an assets executive at Cementation.
Josh Phillips, PE, is the General Manager at FKC \u2013 Lake Shore, a division of Frontier Kemper Constructors, Inc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

HOW DIGITAL TOOLS ARE RESHAPING HOIST PERFORMANCE<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

For more than a century, hoist performance was judged on a narrow set of metrics: average cycle time, availability, and total tons hoisted per day. \u201cIf those numbers looked acceptable, the hoist was assumed to be doing its job,\u201d said Andy Cook of Frontier Kemper Constructors, Inc. Digital monitoring has upended that assumption. For example, as Martin Lepage of Cementation noted, payload monitoring systems and load cells now allow operators to verify material density assumptions and ensure skips are filled to optimal capacity. Newer technologies, such as AI-based LiDAR and camera systems, provide more accurate volumetric measurements than simpler sensors like ultrasonic devices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Modern systems can thus decompose each cycle into granular events. \u201cInstead of asking how fast the hoist is running, operations teams can ask where they are losing time, and how often,\u201d Cook explained. This shift in perspective routinely reveals that throughput losses accumulate through small delays\u2014one to ten seconds at a time\u2014that repeat across thousands of cycles: waiting for ore to fill the loading pocket, conservative braking curves that no longer reflect actual conditions, or operator-controlled hold times that go unquestioned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The primary contribution of automation, Cook argued, is to improve consistency. Advanced control systems dynamically manage acceleration profiles, braking sequences, and conveyance positioning with greater precision than manual or legacy schemes. This allows shaft systems to operate closer to their true limits while maintaining safety margins. Equally important, automated skip loading and discharge sequences eliminate human variability, ensuring consistent timing regardless of operator, shift, or fatigue. \u201cIn practice, many operations see only modest single-digit reductions in nominal cycle time,\u201d he observed. \u201cThe real gains show up in utilization increases of 10% or more, as non-productive variability is steadily eliminated.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some operations are extending this visibility beyond the shaft, integrating hoist data with loading, dispatch, and processing plant systems. When viewed as part of an end-to-end production chain, it often becomes clear that the hoist is where upstream and downstream inefficiencies finally become visible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The next frontier is the digital twin. Continuously updated with live sensor data capturing stress, vibration, temperature, and electrical performance, they support two powerful applications. First, predictive maintenance: identifying conditions that degrade performance long before alarms or failures occur. For instance, subtle brake drag or rope imbalance may not stop a hoist, but they can add seconds to every cycle for weeks at a time. Secondly, digital twins allow engineers to test control strategies, loading logic, or mechanical upgrades virtually before implementation, reducing risk and accelerating optimization without interrupting production.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite the maturity of the technology, adoption remains uneven. ABB\u2019s Lacasse noted that only around 16% of mining operations currently use continuous predictive monitoring. Large, deep-shaft operations in gold, copper, potash, and platinum were the earliest adopters, as even marginal improvements deliver substantial returns. Mid-tier and brownfield operations often have monitoring systems installed but use them only for maintenance or compliance. Smaller operations and aging shafts remain heavily dependent on legacy control systems and operator logs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Across all tiers, however, hardware and software are no longer the limiting factors, as Cook concluded. \u201cThe tools to measure every second, identify every delay, and model every improvement already exist,\u201d he said. The barrier is organizational readiness: data literacy, clear accountability, and the discipline to act on insights that challenge long-held assumptions. \u201cThe most successful operations treat hoist data not as a maintenance artifact, but as a core production management system.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Production hoisting systems are increasingly being pushed to and beyond their design limits. But the biggest throughput losses are rarely mechanical; they\u2019re operational. by Jonathan Rowland All the familiar pressures of modern mining \u2013 deeper orebodies, rising production targets, tighter margins \u2013 converge underground on the shaft. Any interruption here translates directly into lost output. \u201cThe shaft and hoisting equipment…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":12734,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_themeisle_gutenberg_block_has_review":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"Production hoisting systems are increasingly being pushed to and beyond their design limits. But the biggest throughput losses are rarely mechanical; they\u2019re operational.","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[4],"tags":[3418,4641,852],"coauthors":[1635],"class_list":["post-12733","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-features","tag-abb-process-industries","tag-fkc-lake-shore","tag-underground-operations"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t