Vehicle interaction control effectiveness.

1. March 2018
Safety by Design
“Back to Basics”
Vehicle Interaction Control Effectiveness
NSW Resource Regulation
28th Electrical Engineering Safety Seminar
7th & 8th November 2018
Presented by Tim Gray - Glencore Coal

2. Contents
• What is EMESRT?
• Why focus on Vehicle Interaction?
• Reframing the Vehicle Interaction Understanding
• The EMESRT approach
‐ Back to Basics ‐ improving vehicle interaction controls
• Technology Delivery to Industry
• Summary

3. What is EMESRT?
• A mining industry body set up in 2006 to influence how
Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) design and build
their products
• It presents a common industry voice and is focused on:
‐ Reducing health and safety risks from operating and maintaining mining
equipment
• It delivers practical outcomes by:
‐ Connecting a community of; end users, OEMs, researchers, and third party
suppliers
‐ Setting industry level goals and then coordinating their delivery, project by
project

4. Principles
• Designing beyond standards
• Balancing engineering and
behaviour (human factors)
• Recognising the value of task based
design review
• Appreciating that the OEM does its
best with the end user involved
• Open genuine two way
engagement is key
EMESRT Vision, Purpose and Principles

5. Who is involved in EMESRT and its projects?
• The following companies are current EMESRT members:
‐ ALCOA, Anglo American, Glencore, Barrick, Newcrest, Peabody and Rio
Tinto
‐ Recent change of criteria to extending membership (Tech, FMG) including
reengaging with past members (BHP)
• There is a wider community consulted at a project level, for
example the current Vehicle Interaction Control
Improvement Project has 130 members representing 38
organisations:
‐ Nine mining houses
‐ Nine original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)
‐ Regulators and national research organisations CSIRO, Mining3, ACARP
(Australia), Sth African Chamber of Mines, and NIOSH, MSHA (USA)
‐ 17 proximity detection system PDS and other third party equipment,
systems and support suppliers

6. Why focus on Vehicle Interaction controls?
• Industry fatality experience:
‐ Operating mobile equipment and driving are
the highest fatality risk
‐ Causing between 30 to 40% of fatal incidents
year on year
‐ About half the fatalities are pedestrians
• Company and Industry VI focus:
‐ Company fatal hazard protocols with audit
assurance approach (from 2000)
‐ Industry level ICMM intent and leadership
‐ Australian fatality reduction initiative through
MCA and QRC (2014 to date)
• Regulator expectations in South Africa, USA,
Australia and South America

7. Reframing our VI control understanding
Project challenges
• Complex and dynamic
• High dependence on human
factor decision making
• Use of models and
interaction scenarios for
precise problem definition
• Performance requirements
for Design philosophy
• An initial focus on level 7‐9
controls
• Interdependence between
control levels
Level 1‐9 Model adapted from NSW ‐ MDG 2007
Design
Operate
React

8. EMESRT
Control
Technology
Definitions
Intent Statement
Level 7
Awareness
Provide additional information on
the proximity of equipment,
infrastructure and personnel in the
surrounding area
Level 8 Advisory Alerting people to interactions that
might be unsafe to allow them to
take corrective action
Level 9
Intervention
Intervening and taking some form
of control to prevent an unsafe
event
Alignment with NSW (MDG 2007) and South African Legislation
P
A
T
P
A
T
P
D
T
P
D
T
C
A
T
C
A
T
PerceptionPerception
ComprehensionComprehension
ProjectionProjection
DecisionDecision
ActionAction
Model of Situational Awareness – Mica Endsley 1998
This now becomes a
safety system
This now becomes a
safety system
This now becomes a
safety system
EnvironmentEnvironment
Complication – what do we need to be aware
of as we change?
PAT – Proximity Awareness Technology
PDT – Proximity Detection Technology
CAT – Collision Avoidance Technology
More Prone to
Human Error
Less Prone to
Human Error

9. Vehicle Interaction Scenarios – Surface
PUE1 ‐ Equipment to Person PUE3 ‐ Equipment to Environment
PUE2 ‐ Equipment to Equipment PUE4 ‐ Loss of Control
Key to Unwanted Event
= or or or

10. Speed Range km/h
0‐3
3‐10
10‐30
30‐55+
Complication – mobile equipment
incident speed ranges
64%
36%
0%
0%
UG Electric
N=30
17%
31%52%
0%
UG Diesel
N=82
23%
24%26%
27%
Surface
N=77
Exposure takes into account incident rate and an assessment of potential severity of all
unwanted events for Vehicle Interactions (PUE1‐PUE4) combined. The analysis uses
reportable incidents to DMR, South Africa (2010 ‐2015).
And the laws of physics still apply for stopping distances
And we need new
developments to
work across
speed windows

11. Multiple right answers
• The path to improved reliability of vehicle interaction controls
requires a ‘not only but also’ approach
• There is no Silver Bullet
• Optimizing Level 1‐6 controls:
 Supports the introduction of Level 7‐9 controls through reducing
system demands (less exposure)
 May mean new Level 7‐9 controls are not required
• Future EMESRT work to optimize Level 1‐6 controls
 Review commercial technology for improved monitoring of
speed, direction, clearance, fatigue etc.
 Consider data management through IOT, machine learning etc.
• Also before level 7‐9 controls are widely implemented their impact on
and connection with existing level 1‐6 controls needs to be
considered / aligned
• This work challenge will reorganize and deepen our understanding of
what is required to improve vehicle interaction controls in our
industry
EMESRT pivoting “back to basics”
to level 1-6 controls

12. Control
description
ICMM definition/
documents
Erosion
Factors
Control
Support /
Sets
Performance
Requirements
Functional
Requirements
Technical
Requirements
Control
Intent
PR‐5B : Loss of Control
(Level 1‐6)
• PUE4‐Loss of Control
PR‐5B Framework…
Technical
Response
Performance
Response
Control Management Sheet
• Guiding Rules
• Act
• Object
• Technological system

13. Control
description
ICMM definition/
documents
Erosion
Factors
Control
Support /
Sets
Performance
Requirements
Functional
Requirements
Technical
Requirements
Control
Intent
Control Management Sheet
• Guiding Rules
• Act
• Object
• Technological system
PR‐5A : Vehicle Interactions
(Level 7‐9)
• PUE1‐Equipment to Person
• PUE2‐Equipment to Equipment
• PUE3‐Equipment to Environment
PR‐5A Framework…
Technical
Response
Performance
Response
ICMM document

14. Level 7-9 Technology Status update
Design Objectives
Level 7 – Operator Awareness (PAT)
• Technologies that provide information that
enhance operator ability to observe and
understand potential hazards in the
vicinity of the machine
Level 8 – Advisory Controls (PDT)
• Technologies that provide alarms and/or
instructions to enhance the operator
ability to predict a potential unsafe
interaction and apply the right corrective
action
Level 9 – Intervention Controls (CAT)
• Technologies that automatically intervene
and take some form of machine control to
prevent or mitigate an unsafe interaction
(MDG 2007 aligned)
Some current issues
Level 7 – Operator Awareness (PAT)
• Multiple vendors, technologies and often high rates
of nuisance alerts/alarms
• Many products in Late Stage Development /
Commercialisation
Level 8 – Advisory Controls (PDT)
• Easier transition from Level 7 in UG ‐ Low Speed
• More difficult transition not yet fully commercially
proven for Surface Diesel
• Difficult to demonstrate dependability and to reduce
nuisance alarms
Level 9 – Intervention Controls (CAT)
• Accountability as a safety system still to be tested
• UG Electric: some proven low speed products
• UG Diesel: some proven low speed products
• Surface: Initial PoC, technology rapidly developing
but restricted to low speed (10klms) & limited
scenarios

15. EMESRT VI Project – delivering outcomes for industry
Early problem definition:
• An OEM capability gap exists for alerting and intervention
controls (level 7‐9)
• Performance improvement expectation
• Multiple third party Proximity Detection System (PDS)
vendors selling distinct products
• End users need an integrated plug and play capability
VI Project milestones – accelerating innovation
• One on one briefings with both OEMs and PDS suppliers
• Confirmed interoperability framework requirement
• Communication interface protocol prepared for the ISO
technical committee to develop ISO 21815
• ICMM Collaboration from 2017
• Support for PDS Validation Framework project (ACARP)
EMESRT ‐ ISO 21815 Protocol

16. 16
Caterpillar: Confidential Green
Caterpillar - Collision Awareness and Avoidance
• To support South African Mineral Resources Industry’s Collision Awareness and Avoidance
Requirements, Caterpillar is developing field retrofit kits to support 3rd Party Proximity
Detection Systems (PDS) installed into surface mining machines.
• The customer’s 3rd party PDS will interface into the Caterpillar machines using a Proximity
Detection Interface Module (PDIM) in accordance with Part 2 of ISO 21815.
• For the past year, Caterpillar has been working with PDS suppliers and conducted demos to
ensure that Caterpillar’s PDIM meets the requirements of our customers. The following
diagram of describes how these systems will interface into the machines.
Cat Machines 3rd Party PDS
Brake
ECM
Chassis
ECM
3rd Party
Display
3rd Party
Sensors
Caterpillar
PDIM ECM

17. 17
Caterpillar: Confidential Green
Caterpillar PDIM
Caterpillar’s PDIM will support the following commands from PDS systems:
• Motion Inhibit – If PDS detects object in vehicle path prior to initial vehicle motion, this
command prevents throttle input until the object is clear or an operator override is activated.
• Emergency Stop – If PDS detects an object at critical distance, this command will apply
aggressive braking to bring machine to stop as quickly and as safely possible.
• Controlled Stop - If PDS identifies object with imminent collision potential, this command will
apply appropriate braking to bring machine safety to a stop.
• Slow Down – If PDS detects potential rear end collision in a following situations, command will
reduce throttle input.

18. Performance – an industry level process / methodology
PDS Testing Methodology Diagram
Copyright 2018. Internal Confidential – For review of Project Working Group for Feedback Purposes. Property of Mining3

19. EMERST Existing Work stream
• Objective : Provide the industry with an Innovation
Resource and Methodology for the Systematic and
Practical Improvement of Vehicle Interaction Controls
in Mining
• How: Link with the already in progress vehicle
interaction control improvement project (EMESRT /
ICMM Risk Committee)
• Resource: Delegate to the existing ICMM / EMESRT
working group to develop VI info portal platform

20. Summary
• Requirement to define the Vehicle interaction problem (scenarios)
to be able to source a solution – what is the baseline.
• Can the effectiveness of the existing 1-6 controls be improved.
• Specify Functional Requirements (FR) for a technology solution
specific to this problem.
• ‘not only but also’ approach – 1-6 controls and there impact and
connection with 7-9 controls.
• A ‘Back to Basics’ approach is fundamental to understanding and
defining the problem that a technology is to solve.

21. • Stay informed via EMESRT website:
• www.emesrt.org
• Contact with EMESRT secretariat:
• enquiries@emesrt.org
• Discussion with EMESRT member companies
• Via ISO Working Group:
 Nomination of experts through your national standards organisation
 Feedback into standard development via EMESRT
21
How can I participate?
…End of Presentation…