the case for improving our approach to collision avoidance peter standish
TRANSCRIPT
2015 Electrical Engineering Safety Seminar
Peter Standish
The Case for Improving Our Approach to Collision Avoidance
About the Presentation
Introduction
Data
Key findings
Actions Taken within the Mining Industry
Understanding VI Exposure
Managing VI Exposure
Conclusions and Thoughts on Next Steps
11/18/2015 Peter Standish
2
Introduction Mobile equipment incidents affect us all.
This is a really important message - it should make us all stop and think.
Straw poll.
Everyone, please stand up - I want to do an experiment (and get your blood moving so that you can really take in this message!).
Sit down if you've never had a near miss event whilst operating a car or piece of equipment on a public road or mine site.
What's the number?
Sit down if you've never been involved in a serious accident - metal to metal with actual or potential serious injuries (car or piece of equipment on / off a mine site).
What's the number?
This is about Mine Sites only. Sit down if you've never known, investigated or been on shift with someone who lost their life in a mobile equipment (including remote controlled gear) related accident on a mine site.
What's the number?
What the impact?!?
11/18/2015 Peter Standish
3
Analysis Results
For Comparison
Key findings Yes, there is a case.
A good way of considering this is that fatalities resulted from Vehicle interaction (VI).
Data base inputs have changed with time (reporting from additional countries etc.).
Information is not normalised to industry population – tonnages moved have increased.
Data is not linear from around 1990-95 across all incident types.
Actions Taken within the Mining Industry
Mining Companies have been working on developing technology since 2007.
Researchers, Proximity Detection Suppliers and OEM’s have been working on technologies since 1997.
Individual companies have invested significantly without effective return.
The larger mining companies have directed their efforts through EMESRT.
Considerations of risks are being more formally applied.
11/18/2015 Peter Standish
7
Understanding VI Exposure Understanding:
Terminology – PUE – Potential Unwanted Event: 1 – Machine to Person;
2 – Machine to Machine;
3 – Machine to Environment;
4 – Loss of control.
Consider the interaction scenarios: Surface – 24 unique types;
Underground – 25 unique types, and;
Speeds of interaction have a major input on control choices.
Where is the VI exposure? By scenario; By speed range.
VI Exposure* – Mobile Equipment
9 *based on reportable incidents to DMR, South Africa over the period 2010-2015
64%
36%
0% 0%
UG Electric N=30
17%
31% 52%
0% UG Diesel
N=82
23%
24% 26%
27%
Surface N=77
Speed Range km/h
0-3
3-10
10-30
30-55+
Exposure takes into account incident rate and an assessment of potential severity of all unwanted events for Vehicle Interactions (PUE1-PUE4) combined
What speeds can be catered for by current technologies?
EMESRT outputs / findings: In U/G effective control of braking / speed in most
circumstances for speeds 0 to 3 km/hr demonstrated; Some vendors exploring capability at up to 5 to 8
km/hr; Nothing currently available for higher speeds than 5
km/hr.
Challenges of current technological approaches: Nuisance alarming; Human behaviour “defeating” current technologies; Unique interfaces restricting fleet applications.
11/18/2015 Peter Standish
10
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 Controls
Equipment specifications, standards, mine design/plans
Berms, access control, traffic segregation, time schedule
SOP’s, maintenance, road rules, quality control, lockout
Training, licences, induction, access control
Fatigue state, drug & alcohol, medicals
Pre-start, safety tests, machine health, event recordings
Cameras, live maps, mirrors, lights, visible delineators
Alerts: Proximity, Fatigue, Over-speed, Vehicle stability
Interlocks: Prevent Start, Slow-Stop, Rollback, Retarder
years
months
weeks
days
shift
hours
minutes
seconds
ms
Model - Incident Preventative Control Levels
Managing VI Exposure
The journey: Act on the understanding; Work going on to determine if current controls
are effective for levels 1 to 6; Reduce the demand on 7, 8 & 9 controls.
Don’t forget:
People are in the system; Human nature will always defeat technology.
EMESRT Control
MDG 2007 Technology
MDG 2007 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
PAT
PDT
CAT
Perception
Comprehension
Projection
Decision
Action
Environment
Alignment - MDG 2007 & South African requirements
Selection of Vehicle Interaction Controls
Conclusions and Wrap Up There is a case to actively reconsider Vehicle
Interaction Incidents / Controls at your site. You can reduce your level of exposure by improving
Level 1-6 type control effectiveness. EMESRT has just published agreed performance
criteria for level 7,8 & 9 aligned with MDG2007. Current technology does not meet the performance
requirements across all scenarios and speeds. Improving on current technology will come from a
coordinated effort from Customers, OEM’s and Technology Suppliers - to refine standards and meet performance requirements for 7, 8 and 9 level systems.
11/18/2015 Peter Standish
15
With Thanks.
Eric de Zoeten
EMESRT – http://www.emesrt.org
The EESS organisers and support personnel.
VI Scenarios – Surface
19 PUE1 - Equipment to Person PUE3 - Equipment to Environment
PUE2 - Equipment to Equipment PUE4 - Loss of Control
Unwanted Event
= or or or
VI Scenarios – Underground Diesel/Electric
20 PUE1 - Equipment to Person PUE3 - Equipment to Environment
PUE2 - Equipment to Equipment PUE4 - Loss of Control
Unwanted Event
= or
Understanding VI Exposure
21
• Understanding: • Consider the interaction scenarios:
• Surface – 24 unique types; • Underground – 25 unique types, and;
• Speeds of interaction have a major input. • Where is the VI exposure?
• By scenario • By speed range
• How well do current PDS solutions address VI exposure?
• Which scenario / speed range • Where can initial gains be made (low hanging fruit)?
• How much of the risk exposure is addressed?
An Approach to Addressing VI Risks
Base Line
• Controls (A/O/TS) and Support / Assurance Activities. • Scenarios that apply. • Incident learnings.
Enhance
• Failure Modes for Controls (to ID weaknesses). • Activities to improve and that could be dropped / stopped. • Performance requirements of Level 7-9 systems.
Technology
• Risk based development of functional requirements. • Support the OEM’s through late stage development. • Share information on technological successes.