Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation
A Regulator’s View of
Automation, Proximity
Detection and Collision
Avoidance Systems
Tilman Rasche BE MSc
Senior Inspector of Mines, DEEDI
Link between Proximity Detection and Automation
Triumph of partial and full automation will depend
on the success of proximity detection and
collision avoidance technologies and
approaches.
Therefore ….
We can learn from our current experience
(successes and mistakes)
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
2
Assumptions…..
Two blondes living in Brisbane were sitting on a
parkbench talking........ and one blonde says to
the other, "Which do you think is further
away..........Melbourne or the moon?"
The other blonde turns and says "Helloooooooooo,
can you see Melbourne ...?????"
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
3
Dictionary
Assumptions are beliefs or ideas that we hold to be true
— often with little or no evidence required.
We make assumptions every day of our lives…
…. blondes have more fun….
…. the earth is flat…..
…. as a driver on the highway, I assume that other drivers
will obey traffic signals, so that when I go through an
intersection with a green light, I assume that the cross
traffic will stop at its red light.
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
4
Stats from the US - perspective
11%
4.5 in 1000, 1 in 222
http://lifesavers.ky.gov/lifesavers_2006/session17-allred.ppt#671,2,Red Light Running
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
5
Assumptions ‘solve’ a lot of
problems we would
otherwise have to
investigate and answer for
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
6
Scientific investigation into large
scale accidents has allowed us to
come a long way
~ 3 out of 4 = ~ 75%
- vehicle related
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
7
Why do we see what we see…
Increasing dependence on mine vehicles – OC & UG
More & more vehicles, increase in size & speed
– Visibility and space around machine
– Operator & worker behaviour
– Recurring accidents
– Same picture worldwide
Key mining hazard but there are solutions
– Need to clarify assumptions……
Its up to all of us to solve the problem….
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
8
HPIs as of March 2011
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
Source : DEEDI - Serious accidents and high potential incidents Mining and
9
Quarrying Compilation of reports for March 2011
‘Pegging’ the Risk - Rank
Likelihood
Consequence
Assumptions??
Almost
certain
Catastrophic
Major
Most likely
consequence?
(eg permanent
disability)
Moderate
(eg medical /
hospital treat)
Minor
(eg first aid)
Insignificant
Likelihood?
Possible
Unlikely
Rare
(has
happened)
(heard of it
happening)
(not likely to
happen)
(almost
impossible)
1
2
4
7
11
3
5
8
12
16
6
9
13
17
20
10
14
18
21
23
15
19
22
24
25
(common /
repeating)
(eg fatality)
Maximum
reasonable
consequence?
Likely
(eg no injury)
injury)
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
10
Hazards
•
•
•
Moving equipment (‘tons’ of kinetic energy - CAT 797F, payload 360 ton GVM
623 tons, 3,800 HP, top speed 67 km/h, 14.8m long, ~10m wide)
Boeing 747-400 178 tons 3.5*
LTA visibility
LTA hazard awareness
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
11
Automation
CAS
NOW
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
12
Basic design assumptions
What is the basis for ….
•
•
•
•
•
Road widths - 3.5 rule
Separation distances – vehicles in motion require ??? m to stop
Maximum allowable speeds to allow safe braking
Queuing and parkup distances
Detection envelopes for proximity detection technology – cloverleafshape???
• Where is the empirical data to substantiate the above???
• Braking distances
• Operator reaction times
• How will people react?
We too often assume we know what the problem is
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
13
Engineering Assumptions
Q: What is the braking distance
of xyz haultruck? (50 km/h,
level ground, dry road, loaded)
Q: What is the minimum length of
runway for the safe landing of a
Boeing 747?
A: Google
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airpor
ts/acaps/747_4.pdf
14
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
15
What is the problem?
V2V V2P slow speed e.g. Parkup
areas
V2V – overtaking collision
V2V – high speed rear end
collision
V2V - rear end collision
V2V – slow speed rear end collision
V2V collision or reversing over
dump
V2V – head on collision
V2I or V2P forward collision
V2V V2P V2I reversing collisions
V2V collision - intersection
V2V collision – mining face
V2V collision – fast –slow moving
vehicles
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
16
Typical Underground Scenarios, there are many more…..
Continuous
Miner
No Go-Zones !
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
17
Example – design decision partially
responsible for mining deaths MSHA - UG Fatalities - Continuous Miner
29 fatalities or 72% of victims
were operating the remote at the
time of the accident.
Most/all could be avoided if
Proximity Systems had been
available and installed
Legend
X
Victim location
Operating the remote
Not operating the remote
A moving RCCM collided with
another at an intersection,
causing the stationary RCCM
to pivot and crush the other Op
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
Maintenance activity
18
Stopping distance
Acknowledged
braking capability
Behavioural
expectation
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
19
‘There are only so many ways to
kill people, and we know them all’
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
20
?
?
Visibility = Opportunity to identify a hazard & react in time
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
21
Shuttlecar or Truck
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
Miner
22
Person vs. Machine 1
Human Reliability - People are inherently unreliable
Mental processing time
•
•
Sensory – perception/recognition
Interpretation – what does this mean – friend or foe? (Car stopped in the
middle of the road)
•
Response Selection – what happens next?
Expectation
•
•
•
Expected to brake – 0.7 secs = 0.5 secs perception 0.2 secs
movement
Unexpected – 1.25 secs = 1.05 secs perception 0.2 secs movement
Surprise – 1.5 secs =1.2 secs perception 0.3 secs movement
Movement time
•
Brake engagement time – foot movement, on pedal, depress,
mechanical delays
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
23
Person vs. Machine 2
Other factors
• Urgency – time to collision
• Cognitive load – ‘non driving’ matters – music, mobile
phone, autopilot
• Age ~ lower levels of fitness ~ lower response capability
• Gender
• Nature of signal – can it be seen? Is it distinct? Is the
vehicle in front accelerating/decelerating? Aspect –
frontal/from side
• Visibility vs recognition
• Reaction time at night – visual contrast (amber/yellow brown
shooting glasses)
• People will make mistakes (wrong decisions)
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
24
Distance travelled m
90
85
Distance travelled (m) vs time (secs)
80
75
5 km/hr
70
65
20 km/hr
60
55
40 km/hr
10 km/hr
30 km/hr
50 km/hr
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1
2
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
3
Time secs
4
5
25
Tilmans ‘Meaning of Life’ Ver.1.0
HR
Risk
2. Project/Change
Issue RA eg. Coll.
Awareness
3. Routine &
Non Routine Task
Planning RA
4. Individual
‘continuous’
Face RA
Elimination
Substitution
2. FTA, BTA, FMEA,
HAZOP, WRAC
Engineering Control
3. WRAC
Administrative Control Procedure
PPE
4. JSA
Mine
workers
Human behaviour
Risk
Risk &
Issue
1. High Level QRA,
Engineering type
analysis,
FTA, BTA,
FMEA, HAZOP
WRAC
Degree of Difficulty
1. Major Hazard
Baseline RA
RA Tools
People to
administer risk
Control Options
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
Req’d HR
Resources
RA Tools
26
Some CAS Technologies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RFID – tags and readers
Radar
‘Magnetic bubble’
Laser scanning
GPS – surface only
Cameras
Combination of the above
• Opencut and Underground metalliferous - available now
• Underground Coal – requires IS certification – mid 2011
• Cost from $5k per vehicle
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
27
Fit for purpose equipment - Selection of
the equipment
• Sites to review all risk assessments based on local and published
collision scenarios
• Change management – change of system functions
• Verify that selected proximity detection system is in fact able to
mitigate the collision scenarios
• Need explicit underlying assumptions (speed, distance etc.)
• Polar diagrams’ showing the actual detection envelope of their
systems, not assumed envelopes - ‘clover leaf’ vs actual pattern.
• Clarify CAS - ‘collision awareness/avoidance system’
• Physics - mine sites must understand what the chosen system can
and cannot do - Manufacturers to declare the capabilities of their
systems.
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
28
Fit for purpose equipment - Selection of the equipment
• Manufacturers to declare if their systems are ‘collision
awareness’ or ‘avoidance systems’, and provide sound,
logical and unambiguous evidence for their judgement.
• Sites to check inference with other radio frequencies
• Hardware – veiling (reflection), clarity of display etc.
• Placement of screens/ alarming units – should be in field
of vision
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
29
Fit for purpose equipment - Selection of the equipment
• Combination of screens and method of alarming –
intuitive exception based alarming based on criticality?
• Mine sites to review the systems ability - future
proofing
• Review breaking distances for all vehicles for the
range of operating speeds and conditions - verify that
current site vehicle separation distances are
sufficient
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
30
Competent People
• Review ‘Operations rules’ i.e. if systems deemed
safety critical, then operational procedures must ensure
consistency of approach.
• Site champions - effective acceptance and utilisation of
proximity detection systems – link between site –
operations and maintenance and the proximity detection
manufacturer.
• Dedicated maintenance personnel to ensure a
successful commissioning and implementation of the
system.
– Who is going to maintain proximity detection and
automation systems – specialised skill
• Proximity detection issues - simulator training
• Maintainability – easy and safe access to all external
hardware must be achieved.
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
31
Safe Work Practises
• Sites to review and update relevant site procedures
incl. prestart checks to ensure proximity detection
systems and their importance as a safety control is
assured and recognised.
• Proximity detection system requirements for contractor
vehicles operating at different sites. Commonality of
approach and rule-set.
• Design and roll out a comprehensive training program
that outlines how to use the system effectively.
Incorporate a section that explains what the system can
do and what it cannot do.
• ‘Nuisance’ alarms or conditions may be in fact real
alarms due to the systems design and capabilities
(physics)
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
32
Controlled Working Environment
• Proximity detection equipment must not be considered
as the primary solution to mitigate collision risks.
• Must also consider their pit design & layout –
intersection, haulroad, dump designs, road separation
human behaviours etc.
• Inherently safer operating environment
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
33
Market Place
• Collaboration - several prox detection OEMs
integrating their systems into ‘one’
• Combined systems better than sum of all
• Some machinery OEMs allowing prox system to
manage their machine – eg. braking
• GPS ( high speed) plus radar (slow speed) –
opencut
• ‘Magnetic bubble’ plus … - underground
• Ability to create non-detection envelopes on the
equipment
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
34
In Summary
• ‘What is the problem, then look for solutions’ - effectiveness
• (V2V, V2P V2I) Accidents are preventable
• Free lessons from proximity detection systems implementation towards
automation
• Proximity detection systems are not the complete answer but are an
essential part of the solution
• Must also look at human factors – human ‘unreliability’
• Proximity Detection Technology is available or rapidly becoming
available
• Need a side by side integrated combination of approaches
• Must be embraced – life saving technology
• Key to making automation a safe reality
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
35
Every miner home safe and
healthy every day
© The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010
36