TECHNOLOGY
became a major focus of the industry.
From 2004 to 2009, 35% of fatalities at
mine sites were due to vehicle interaction
incidents and 53% of these involved
pedestrians. In response to these statistics
and the DMR’s promulgation of legislation
mandating the use of PDSs for mining
operations, EMESRT started a project to
develop an open‐architecture industry
communications standard for proximity
detection and vehicle interaction.
EMESRT’s original design philosophies
(DPs) developed in 2007/2008 addressed
15 topics, which have since been
consolidated into eight:
1. Access and working at heights
2. Tyres and rims
3. Exposure to harmful energies
4. Fire
5. Machine operation and controls
6. Health impacting factors
7. Manual tasks
8. Confined spaces and restricted work
areas
Of these, DP 5, ‘Machine operation and
controls’, clearly encompasses the extent
of the vehicle interaction problems,
although it does not contain sufficient
detail for designers to fully understand
the issues. EMESRT adopted a nine-step
hierarchical-type model around design,
operate and react (see Figure 1) which
clearly identified focus areas for end users,
OEMs and third-party PDS suppliers. This
work culminated in the development of
the performance requiremen t document
PR 5A to augment the existing DP 5, and
which provides for clear communication
of system capabilities, requirements and
performance between the parties. Figure
2 shows the design philosophy focus areas
for vehicle interaction.
These nine hierarchical levels are
interdependent, and the first six levels –
site requirements, segregation controls,
operating procedures, authority to
operate, fitness to operate and operating
compliance – are all reliant on people,
procedures and systems rather than
technology. It is only at the last three
levels – operator awareness, advisory
controls and intervention controls –
that PDS technology comes into play.
And each of these three levels must be
developed sequentially.
Unfortunately, many of the problems
and incidents involving TMMs relate to
poor implementation and enforcement
of the first six control levels, an issue that
obviously needs to be addressed before any
technology is implemented.
Communication across brands
The collaborative industry working group
with both the OEMs and third-party
system suppliers, initiated and facilitated
by EMESRT, aims to develop a common
electronic communication protocol to
enable slowdown and stopping of mobile
equipment. This protocol is based on the
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
‘J1939: serial control and communications
heavy duty vehicle network’ standard
for communication and diagnostics
among vehicle components. The standard
originated in the car and heavy-duty truck
industry in the US and is now used globally.
The protocol forms one part of a new ISO
standard that is also under development,
‘ISO 21815: Earth-moving machinery –
Collision awareness and avoidance’.
One of the PDS OEMs involved in the
EMESRT initiative is Booyco Electronics,
which started operating in South Africa in
2006, mainly focuses on the underground
mining fraternity where legislation
compelling the use of PDS technology has
been in place for some time.
“When I started this business 11
years ago, we focused mainly on PDS
underground,” says Booyco MD, Anton
Lourens. “Then about five years ago we
secured a service contract where we
basically deployed our underground
technology onto surface. We discovered
quite early in that rollout that the
technology wasn't necessarily the best
technology for surface. So, over the past
four years we've developed fit-for-purpose
technology for surface applications, very
specifically aimed at quarries, open pits and
opencast mines.”
Table 1: EMESRT vehicle interaction technology design objectives
Level 7 – Operator awareness: Technologies that provide information to enhance the
operator’s ability to observe and understand potential
hazards in the vicinity of the machine.
Level 8 – Advisory controls: Technologies that provide alarms and / or instruction
to enhance the operator ability to predict a potential
unsafe interaction and the corrective action required.
Level 9 – Intervention controls Technologies that automatically intervene and take
some form of machine control to prevent or mitigate an
unsafe interaction.
Table 2: Incident preventative control levels
1. Site requirements Equipment specifications, standards, mine design / plans years
2. Segregation controls Berms, access control, traffic segregation, time schedule months
3. Operating procedures SOPs, maintenance, road rules, quality control, lockout weeks
4. Authority to operate Training, licences, induction, access control days
5. Fitness to operate Fatigue state, drug and alcohol, medical shift
6. Operating compliance Pre‐start, safety tests, machine health, event recordings hours
7. Operator awareness Cameras, live maps, mirrors, lights, visible delineators minutes
8. Advisory controls Alerts: proximity, fatigue, over‐speed, vehicle stability seconds
9. Intervention controls Interlocks: prevent start, slow‐stop, roll back, retarder ms
Design
Operate
React
QUARRY SA | JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2018 _ 17