sa tmm chapter 8 amendments - aspasaaspasa.co.za/pdfs/aspasa tmm comms pack-thys.pdf · sa tmm...

SA TMM Chapter 8 Amendments

(27 February 2015)

TMM Collision Management

ASPASA Transport Committee

Thys Greyvensteyn

18th May 20171

Agenda

2

1. Regulatory Requirements2. Chamber of Mines Coordination Role3. Risk Evaluations

• Separate presentation by Chris Doran4. User Requirements5. Vendor Engagements6. Site Risk Assessments7. Technology Development on Pilot Sites8. Way Forward

Chapter 8 Collision Management Amendments27 February 2015

…..where there is a significant risk of such collisions……

Trackless mobile equipment must be provided with means:

…..to automatically detect the presence of pedestrians in UG, and equipment in Pits, to effectively warn the operator of such a presence • ‘Collision Awareness’ should already be implemented

…..and in the event where no action is taken to prevent potential collision, further means shall be provided to retard the “trackless mobile machine” to a safe speed where after the brakes of the diesel powered “trackless mobile machine” are automatically applied • ‘Collision Avoidance’ with a period of grace till technology is available

3

Chapter 8 Amendments Significant Risk…..where there is a significant risk of such collisions……

‘Significant Risk’ to be determined by each site through a risk assessment process

1. Only equipment with significant risk need to have PDS technologies fitted2. ‘Minimum requirements’ for equipment where there is significant risk

• Underground: At least Equipment to Pedestrian PDS technologies• Opencast and Pits: Equipment to Equipment PDS technologies• Otherwise reasonably practicable controls to reduce the risk from significant

3. Surface (Plants, concentrators, quarries, services, etc.) – not defined so reasonably practicable controls to reduce the risk from significant

4. Where no risk assessments have been completed all equipment may be required to be fitted with PDS technologies

Definition of significant risk – up to each site to define taking into account existing controlsConsequence Level

Insignificant Low Moderate High MajorTime

Frame

Like

liho

od

Almost Certain 11 (M) 16 (S) 20 (S) 23 (H) 25 (H) <1 year

Likely 7 (M) 12 (M) 17 (S) 21 (H) 24 (H) 1-3 years

Possible 4 (L) 8 (M) 13 (S) 18 (S) 22 (H) 3-10 years

Unlikely 2 (L) 5 (L) 9 (M) 14 (S) 19 (S) 10-30 years

Rare 1 (L) 3 (L) 6 (M) 10 (M) 15 (S) >30 years

First

Aid

Case

Medical

Treatment

Injury

Lost

Time

Injury

Single

Fatality or

TD Incident

Multiple

Fatality

Incident

One possible example

4

Chapter 8 AmendmentsPDS Implementation Schedule

…..where there is a significant risk of such collisions……

Trackless mobile equipment must be provided with means:

…..to automatically detect the presence of pedestrians (UG)/equipment (Pits) to effectively warn the operator of such a presence• ‘Collision Awareness’ should already be already implemented (May 2015)

…..and in the event where no action is taken to prevent potential collision, further means shall be provided to retard the “trackless mobile machine” to a safe speed where after the brakes of the diesel powered “trackless mobile machine” are automatically applied.• Compromise on Collision Avoidance:

1. UG Electrical – Now. Technology already available2. Underground Diesel – new equipment purchased after June 2017 must be CA ready3. Underground Diesel – June 20184. Opencast and Open Pits – June 20195. Surface (plants, concentrators, quarries, services, etc.) – June 20196. Grandfather clause – December 2019

5

‘Way Forward’ Program of Work“Way Forward’ industry proposal to achieve the targets of:

o UG Diesel – June 2018

o Open Pits and Surface – June 2019

1. Analyse South African TMM incident statistics

o Identify ‘significant risk’

o Industry alignment on ‘significant risk’

2. Develop a South African TMM Risk Guidelineo Inputs for Risk Assessments

3. Technology Process Assessments of PDS Suppliers, OEMs and Third Parties

4. Developing industry User Requirements and Specifications

o Leveraging work done to date

o Collaborative project through EMESRT

o ISO interface standard

5. UoP developing a test capability for surface PDS solutions – CoE project

6. Coordination of pilots on sites to develop the necessary technical solutions

7. Coordination, monitoring and reporting on progress

Schedule

• March – CM&EE supported this sub committee

• April – Support by CEO Meeting for the COM to support and fund the ‘Way Forward’ project proposal

• May? – new dates to be gazettedo No more grace!

Communication schedule moving forward

• Q2 2017 – Meetings with all Suppliers and OEMs to clarify requirements and to understand their processes and dates

• Q2 2017 – Meetings with Mining Houses/ASPASA to clarify the requirements and to understand their strategies for implementation of Collision Management Strategies

• Q2 2017 - Workshops in each of the 9 Province Tripartite Meetings to communicate the ‘Way Forward’

6

CM&EE Industry Task Team

CM&EE Task Team Responsibilities1. Meet bimonthly2. Coordinate the Way Forward3. To sensitise and influence the

industry4. Influence the direction for the

PDS industry5. Influence the OEMs to commit6. Coordinate the projects

• Incident analysis• Risk Guidelines• Stage-gate technology

development process• Industry standards• CoE Testing Facility• Coordinate pilots

7. Communicate the progress to MRAC, PDS Suppliers, OEMs, CM&EE and Industry CEOs

CM&EE Task Team1. Harmony2. Kumba3. Anglo Coal4. Anglo Platinum5. Petra Diamonds6. Lonmin7. AGA8. Impala9. De Beers

10. Sasol11. Sibanye12. Gold Fields13. Exxaro14. South 3215. ASPASA

7

Possible Additional Members1. Nkomati2. Glencore

Project Schedule

8

24-Apr-17 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1. Incident AnalysisCollect Data

Draft Analysis

Update Analysis

2. TMM Risk GuidelineOpen Pit pilot in Excel

Industry comments

Design Web Tool

Develop Web Tool

Open Pit

Underground Diesel

Underground Electric

Surface

3. Technology Process AssessmentDevelop & Test process

Evaluate PDS Suppliers

Evaluate OEMs

Feedback

4. Industry User Requirements (EMESRT)Develop User Requirements

Industry Consultation

Publish

Interface Protocol Draft

Interface Protocol SAE & Standard

5. PDS Test Facility (UoP)Develop CMS Simulation

Develop PDS Test Capability

6. Project Monitoring

7. Coordination

Group Strategy RoadmapGroup

Incident Review (Internal and External)

Control Effectiveness Review

Identify Significant Risk

Site Risk Assessment

Roll-out

User Requirements and Vendor Evaluation

Site Scope and DeliverablesTechnology Development Process

9

30

-55

+

10

-30

3-1

0

0-3

0-3

3-1

0

10

-30

30

-55

+

L1-Head-on V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8

L2-Reverse-on V-V 8 8 9 9 8 8 8 8

L3-Backup V-V 8 8 9 9 8 8 8 8

L4-Dovetailing V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8

L5-Passing Head-on V-V 7 7 8 8 8 8 7 7

L6-Passing Reverse-on V-V 7 7 8 8 8 8 7 7

L7-Overtaking V-V 7 7 8 8 8 8 7 7

L8-Blind Approach V-V 8 8 9 9 9 9 8 8

T1-Merge V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8

T2-Crossover V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8

T3-Junction V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8

T4-Intersection V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8

O1- Obstacle V-O 7 7 7 9 9 7 7 7

P1-Person (direct) V-P - - - - - - - -

P3-Person (indirect) V-P - - - - - - - -

V1-Void V-O 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

V4-Loss of Control LOC 7 7 7 7 9 9 9 7

V6-Congested Area V-V 7 7 8 9 9 8 7 7

Speed Ranges

Reverse ForwardOpen Pit / Opencast

SenariosPUE

30

-55

+

10

-30

3-1

0

0-3

0-3

3-1

0

10

-30

30

-55

+

L1-Head-on V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8

L2-Reverse-on V-V 8 8 9 9 8 8 8 8

L3-Backup V-V 8 8 9 9 8 8 8 8




L7-Overtaking V-V 7 7 8 8 8 8 7 7


T1-Merge V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8

T2-Crossover V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8

T3-Junction V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8


O1- Obstacle V-O 7 7 7 9 9 7 7 7



V1-Void V-O 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7



Speed Ranges


SenariosPUE

Levels of Control

1. Site Requirements

2. Segregation Controls

3. Operating Procedures

4. Authority to Operate

5. Fitness to Operate

6. Operating Compliance

7. Operator Awareness

8. Advisory Controls

9. Intervention ControlsCollision AvoidanceTakes control from the operator

Proximity DetectionAdvises the operator

Proximity AwarenessAlerts the operator

Operational Discipline Controls

Design Guidelines

Work Area Controls for all equipment that

could reduce ‘significant risk’

and costs

Technology Controls to address

‘significant risk’

Regulation 8.10.1 and 8.10.2

10

Group Risk Evaluation

11

ASPASA

Group 1 Group 2

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site Site

Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Site 5

Site 6

Safety 1 1 1

Ops 1 1 1

Maint/Eng 1 1 1

Contractor 1

Union 1 1

15-20 People

Incident Review (Internal and External)

Control Effectiveness Review

Identify Significant Risk

Group / SITE

39.9% 5.8% 13.3% 41.0%

48 5,043 2010 290 673 2070

Front End Loader 15 1810 1000 19 (S) 10 10 (M) 200 18 (S) 600 18 (S)

LDV 10 1260 10 10 (M) 100 18 (S) 150 18 (S) 1000 19 (S)

ADT 5 680 200 18 (S) 80 18 (S) 200 19 (S) 200 19 (S)

Forklift 8 493 300 18 (S) - 3 8 (M) 190 18 (S)

Road Truck (flat bed) 5 350 100 18 (S) 100 18 (S) 100 19 (S) 50 17 (S)

Road Side Tipper 5 450 400 19 (S) - 20 17 (S) 30 12 (M)

Person - - - - - -

47.8% 1.9% 7.1% 43.2%

115 25743 12300 500 1823 11120

Front End Loader 30 8400 5000 22 (H) 100 17 (S) 300 18 (S) 3000 20 (S)

LDV 30 6800 400 19 (S) 200 18 (S) 200 18 (S) 6000 23 (H)

ADT 20 2550 750 19 (S) 100 18 (S) 800 19 (S) 900 19 (S)

Forklift 20 6293 5300 23 (H) - 3 8 (M) 990 19 (S)

Road Truck (flat bed) 10 1200 400 19 (S) 100 18 (S) 500 19 (S) 200 17 (S)

Road Side Tipper 5 500 450 19 (S) - 20 17 (S) 30 12 (M)

Person - - - - - -

Combined(site controls)

Priority Unwanted Event

Equipment

Incid

ents

Weig

hte

d

Ris

k Person Vehicle Environment Uncontrolled

V-P V-V V-E LoC

DMR / Industry(site controls)

49.6% 1.0% 5.6% 43.8%

67 20650 10240 210 1150 9050

Front End Loader 15 6590 4000 22 (H) 90 17 (S) 100 15 (S) 2400 20 (S)

LDV 20 5540 390 19 (S) 100 16 (S) 50 14 (S) 5000 23 (H)

ADT 15 1870 550 19 (S) 20 14 (S) 600 18 (S) 700 19 (S)

Forklift 12 5800 5000 23 (H) - - 800 19 (S)

Road Truck (flat bed) 5 850 300 19 (S) - 400 18 (S) 150 15 (S)

Person - - - - - -

Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6 Level 1-6








L9 - - -




L9 - - -




L9 - - -




L9 - - -




Collision Management Strategy

Person VehicleEnviron-

ment

Uncon-

trolled

V-P V-V V-E LoC

12

Surface

User Requirements

13

30

-55

+

10

-30

3-1

0

0-3

0-3

3-1

0

10

-30

30

-55

+

L1-Head-on V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8

L2-Reverse-on V-V 8 8 9 9 8 8 8 8

L3-Backup V-V 8 8 9 9 8 8 8 8




L7-Overtaking V-V 7 7 8 8 8 8 7 7


T1-Merge V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8

T2-Crossover V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8

T3-Junction V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8


O1- Obstacle V-O 7 7 7 9 9 7 7 7



V1-Void V-O 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7



Speed Ranges


SenariosPUE

Equipment Test Configurations

ScopeTechnical Profile

Solution Complexity

Pathway to L9 for Surface

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 2017 End 2018

Concept

Lab Scale

S-Machine

M-Machine

Demonstration

Commercialise L7 - Awareness

Concept

Lab Scale

S-Machine

Multiple Machine

Concept

Lab Scale

S-Machine

M-Machine

Demonstration L9

Commercialise L9 OEM

Commercialise L9 PDS

Leve

l of

Effo

rt, S

kills

, C

om

pet

enci

es, D

ecis

ion

Mak

ing

Demo L9

TargetJune 2019

Complexity Step Change“Production and Management”

Complexity Step Change“Technical”

Demonstration L8

Requires a structured Test Site

Level 7Awareness

Level 8Advisory

Level 9Avoidance

14

xx

xxx

Vendor Engagement and Decision

15

Site Risk Assessment and Scope FinalisationWith Preferred Vendors

163

0-5

5+

10

-30

3-1

0

0-3

0-3

3-1

0

10

-30

30

-55

+

L1-Head-on V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8

L2-Reverse-on V-V 8 8 9 9 8 8 8 8

L3-Backup V-V 8 8 9 9 8 8 8 8




L7-Overtaking V-V 7 7 8 8 8 8 7 7


T1-Merge V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8

T2-Crossover V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8

T3-Junction V-V 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8


O1- Obstacle V-O 7 7 7 9 9 7 7 7



V1-Void V-O 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7



Speed Ranges


SenariosPUE

Significant Risk from Risk Evaluation

Site Risk Assessment

Signed-off Solution Scope

Technology Development ProcessFor Sites, PDS and OEMs together

1. Understand User Requirements

2. Understand Regulatory Requirements

3. Understand the market

1. Develop User Requirements

2. Review alternatives3. Identify technologies4. Indicative Business

Case5. Development Strategy

and Schedule6. Development funding

model7. Model the

requirements8. Choose partner/s

going forward

1. Operational Risk Assessment

2. Confirm Test Protocols

3. Industrial Prototype (on multiple machines in a production test environment)

1. Review User Requirements

2. Model the requirements

3. Define the specifications & deliverables

4. Confirm the Test Protocols

5. Update the Business Case

1. Design and build a prototype

2. Lab Scale Tests

1. Design and build Prototype

2. Design Risk Assessments

3. Develop interface protocol and test

4. Prototype Test (on a

machine in a test environment)

1. Confirm User Requirements

2. Sign-off on exclusions3. Confirm Performance

Requirements4. Confirm Business Case5. Update the simulation

model with actual data 6. Confirm Deliverables

and Test Protocols7. Update design and

rebuild if necessary8. Review Design and

Operational Risk Assessments

9. Operator, Maintenance and Training Manuals

10. Training

1. Production Demonstration Test (on

multiple machines in a production environment)

2. Evaluate performance and Close-out Report

1. Update User Requirements

2. Sign-off on exclusions

3. Develop Commercial Plan

4. Develop Implementation Schedule

5. Define Operating Procedures and Training

6. Define Support Model

Demonstration Test

Industrial Prototype Test

ConceptTRL 1-3

ResearchTRL 4-5

DevelopmentTRL 6

DemonstrationTRL 7

CommercialTRL 8-9

1 2 3 4

Implementation

Lab Scale Test

DM

R Tech

nical File

Prototype Test

17

9 Feb 2017

Not Signed-off

Not done

Signed-off

Concept

Technology Development ProcessSite Responsibilities

1. Understand User Requirements

2. Understand Regulatory Requirements

3. Understand the market

1. Develop User Requirements

2. Review alternatives3. Identify technologies4. Indicative Business

Case5. Development Strategy

and Schedule6. Development funding

model7. Model the

requirements8. Choose partner/s

going forward

1. Operational Risk Assessment

2. Confirm Test Protocols

3. Industrial Prototype (on multiple machines in a production test environment)

1. Review User Requirements

2. Model the requirements

3. Define the specifications & deliverables

4. Confirm the Test Protocols

5. Update the Business Case

1. Design and build a prototype

2. Labscale Tests

1. Design and build Prototype

2. Design Risk Assessments

3. Develop interface protocol and test

4. Test Prototype (on a

machine in a test environment)

1. Confirm User Requirements

2. Sign-off on exclusions3. Confirm Performance

Requirements4. Confirm Business Case5. Update the simulation

model with actual data 6. Confirm Deliverables

and Test Protocols7. Update design and

rebuild if necessary8. Review Design and

Operational Risk Assessments

9. Operator, Maintenance and Training Manuals

10. Training

1. Production Demonstration Test (on

multiple machines in a production environment)

2. Evaluate performance and Close-out Report

1. Update User Requirements

2. Sign-off on exclusions

3. Develop Commercial Plan

4. Develop Implementation Schedule

5. Define Operating Procedures and Training

6. Define Support Model

Go/Demo again

Go/Redevelop

ConceptTRL 1-3

ResearchTRL 4-5

DevelopmentTRL 6

DemonstrationTRL 7

CommercialTRL 8-9

1 2 3 4

Implement

Go/Redesign

DM

R Tech

nical File

Go/Redevelop Date -

Red – End User input required18

Technology Development ProcessTest Sites

19

Underground Hard Rock Diesel Test SiteTest Details

• Test Site – Mining House, Site• Site Project Manager – Piet Pompies

• Mining method – Hard Rock Mechanised

• PDS Supplier - X

• OEMs – A, B and C

Project Progress• Project halted in Jun 2016 at L9 Demonstration due

to production impact

• Project to be restarted Jun 2017

PDS Technology Process

• Scope• L8 V-V and V-P on all machines

• L9 V-P on defined machines

• Technology Readiness• L9 Production impact issues

• Technology dependability and reliability

OEM Technology Process

• Equipment• OEM A – Models

• OEM B – Models

• OEM C - Models

• OEMs focussing on intelligent machines

• Technology Readiness• All 3 OEMs have provided CA Ready solutions for

intelligent machines

• Band C have developed CA Ready solutions for non-intelligent machines

20

30

-55

+

10

-30

3-1

0

0-3

0-3

3-1

0

10

-30

30

-55

+

L1-Head-on V-V - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -

L2-Reverse-on V-V - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -

L3-Backup V-V - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -

L4-Dovetailing V-V - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -

L5-Passing Head-on V-V - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -

L6-Passing Reverse-on V-V - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -

L7-Overtaking V-V - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -

L8-Blind Approach V-V - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -

T1-Merge V-V - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -

T2-Crossover V-V - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -

T3-Junction V-V - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -

T4-Intersection V-V - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -

O1- Obstacle V-O - 7 7 9 9 7 7 -

P1-Person (direct) V-P - 7 9 9 9 9 7 -

P3-Person (indirect) V-P - 7 9 9 9 9 7 -

V1-Void V-O - - - - - - - -

V4-Loss of Control LOC - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -

V6-Congested Area V-V - 7 8 8 8 8 7 -

UG Diesel

SenariosPUE

Speed Ranges

Reverse Forward

Solution Scope

21

Test Sites

• Must follow the defined process and be willing to share results

• Tests must be representative of ASPASA operations

• Test sites have to be sponsored and managed by a site

• Tests to include the Site, PDS Supplier and the OEM (plus 3rd party if involved)

• Sites may already be testing

• Sites may already have identified their PDS Supplier

• Sites may still need to identify their PDS Supplier and wish to become a test site

• Sites may already have identified a 3rd Party OEM

PDS 1 PDS 2 PDS 3 PDS 4 PDS 5 PDS 6

Bell x x

Cat x x

Komatsu Group

Site

Proj Lead

Volvo x Group

Site

3rd Party

Proj Lead

Liebherr

Hitachi

ASPASA Test Sites

Way ForwardRisk Evaluations

• Nominations of participants

• Risk Evaluation – 26 to 29 June

• At ASPASA

• Circulation of findings

• Planning going forward

• Moving to Site Assessments

Test Sites

• Nomination of Test Sites

• Vendor Evaluations

• Implementing the Test Process

• Stakeholder management

• Regular report-back

Site Audit Process

• Process to be developed by ASPASA

• Through Marius Deventer

22

Next Meetings

• Risk Evaluation Feedback – 3 July

• Second Transport Meeting – 7 September

• Cape Town Regcom – 3 October

• Kwazulu Natal Regcom – 4 October

PDS 1 PDS 2 PDS 3 PDS 4 PDS 5 PDS 6

Bell x x

Cat x x

Komatsu Group

Site

Proj Lead

Volvo x Group

Site

3rd Party

Proj Lead

Liebherr

Hitachi

Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Site 5

Site 6

Safety 1 1 1

Ops 1 1 1

Maint/Eng 1 1 1

Contractor 1

Union 1 1

15-20 People

Thankyou

23

Thys Greyvensteyn

[email protected]

+27 (0) 82 871 7617

mailto:[email protected]

sa tmm chapter 8 amendments - aspasaaspasa.co.za/pdfs/aspasa tmm comms pack-thys.pdf · sa tmm...

Documents