Download - Greg Mascioli – Mobile Maintenance Thursday, October 01, 2015 Equipment Visibility Presentation
Greg Mascioli – Mobile Maintenance Wednesday, April 19, 2023
Equipment Visibility Presentation
2
The Issue
One of the main issues when operating heavy equipment is the inability of the operator to always see pedestrians and other equipment nearby.
This has led to many near misses, high potential incidents, equipment damage, injuries and fatalities in the industry.
3
The Issue
Case study showing the line of site accidents & injuries between 1986 & 2002.
Note the totals!
How many near misses were there?
4
The Issue
Closer to home in the last few years;
• One mine had a fatality – electrician run over by a loader – Visibility was an issue
• Another mine had a fatality – miner run over by a loader – Visibility was an issue
• At another site near miss when a geologist was picked up in a bucket of ore – Visibility was an issue
5
The Issue
At Kidd, we weren’t immune to the problem:
Injury involving 2 mechanics – one was pinned between two vehicles – Visibility was one of the issues
6
The Issue
• In another incident a loader collided with a parked fuel truck which was refueling another loader in the drift.
• The approaching loader (bucket was full) could see the parked loader down the drift, but not the smaller fuel truck.
• Visibility issue.
7
The Issue
Another incident involved a loader driving bucket first making a right hand turn.
• The unit collided with a parked scissorlift causing damage – Visibility was an issue
In another occurrence a loader operator was travelling down ramp with a full bucket, bucket first.
• The unit collided with a pickup truck and pushed it down ramp a distance before the operator heard the screeching metal – Visibility was an issue.
8
The Issue
Needless to say,
The Mining Industry has An Issue With Visibility when Operating Heavy Equipment!
9
The Solution
• Flashing LED’s were given to all employees to be worn on the rear of their hats to improve visibility while walking away from equipment.
Because of the concern, a number of projects were started at Kidd;
10
The Solution
areas notification flashing blue lights• Underground service groups were given flashing blue LED’s.
• These were to be hung from the wall or back to act as a warning beacon for approaching equipment.
Hooked LED style whips are also being considered by the maintenance group
11
The Solution
Flags equipped with reflective tape were installed on all smaller equipment.
We also are currently looking at enhancing the flag pole with LED Whips.
New types of LED strobe lights are to replace our old ones which better address light pollution.
12
The Solution
Taking a cue from our contractors; “High Visibility” coveralls are being purchased for all employees.
13
The Solution
On top of the visibility issues, a new Horn Standard was developed at Kidd so that large equipment operators could hear oncoming small vehicles.
- The result has been overwhelmingly accepted by all heavy equipment operators.
- New horns have been installed on 2/3 of the fleet to date.
- This will be the subject of another presentation in the future.
Last Reviewed: 2009 02 23
To All Site Personnel
Last Reviewed: 2010 02 26Review Date: 2011 02 26
KMN-15-HS-FRM-20143
Horns are going to be LOUDER!
In December 2010, we experienced a High Potential Risk Incident associated with a Risk Register High Hazard Activity. Interaction between mobile equipment and workers resulted in an HPRI incident where two workers could have been pinned between a Toyota service truck and a Mclean boom truck.
One of the gaps identified during the incident investigation process revealed the need to establish an audible alarm standard for mobile equipment.
A new site Mobile Equipment Standard - Horn and Back-Up Alarm has been written and is available on the site intranet.
Sustainable Development 17 Standards/Standard 8/Standards/Horn and Back-Up Alarm
The new standard requires that :-Horn frequency be within the range of 300 – 475 Hz.-Horn loudness be 105 dBA measured @ 3 meters from the front and rear of the unit.-Horns will not be louder than 115 dBA.
In order to meet compliance to this standard, all underground mobile equipment will be measured to the standard, during regularly scheduled maintenance inspections.
Any mobile equipment that fail to meet the standard, will be retrofitted with a new horn.
Note:• Always be aware of the equipment around you and changing conditions.• Always place yourself or your equipment out of harms way.• Operators, know who is in your area or path of travel before moving your
equipment.• Always communicate your intent using audible alarms.• Pedestrians, be aware of mobile equipment activities going on around you.• Never take for granted the Operator sees you! Be safe be seen!
May 4, 2011
14
The Solution
A Collision Avoidance System is being considered;
• We are currently awaiting delivery of a test system which will warn the operator of pedestrians and equipment in close proximity to large equipment.
• The system will be able to monitor pedestrians /equipment within a 5 meters, 30 meters and 100 meters of the unit.
• Reliability has to be the key for this to work.
15
The Solution
We then considered the visibility the operator had and saw fit to address this in several steps.
First of all – We informed the workforce about an area called the
“NO ZONE”Operator visibility is often restricted
when a pedestrian enters this area.
16
The Solution
Pedestrian Pedestrian no longer visible
We reminded our employees about things that would obstruct the operators vision – “Do Not ASSUME You Are Seen!”
• Bucket, Boom, Light Brackets, Air Conditioner, Fire Extinguisher Placement, Cab Canopy design, etc.
17
The Solution
Presentations were given to all crews identifying the “Danger” or “No Zone” complete with examples.
• Here are a few
18Material Handler
Caution: No Zone pivots when the equipment pivots
Area of fullyobstructed view
Area of Limited visibility
Operator eye level 17 ft
above ground level
19
Operator eye level 6 ft - 3 in.
above ground level
Bulldozer
12’ 1”
18’ 7”
8’ 2”
12’ 5”
8’ 2”
16’ 0”
3’ 10”
20
Operator eye level 5 ft - 5 in.
Above ground level
6’ 1”
11’ 7”
6’ 3”
Bobcat
3’ 1”
4’ 10”
11’ 5”
21’ 8”
21
The Solution
We decided to apply the same logic to our larger equipment fleet identifying the “No Zone” or “Blind Spots”
• We contacted Dr. Tammy Eger and Dr. Alison Godwin from the “Center for Research in Occupational Safety & Health” at Laurentian University who have worked with WSN (Underground Equipment Committee)
• We asked them to evaluate a Toro 1400 loader for line of site blind spots – make recommendations showing where to install a camera system
• Since we knew it would be some time before a collision avoidance system could be tested – decided to try something lower tech – 4 camera system to enhance visibility.
22
The Solution
Field measures were completed using the adapted FERIC method, previously used by the Laurentian research team (Eger et al. 2004).
Several two-dimensional plots were
created to provide a visual representation of the restricted line of sight available to the operator.
23
The Solution
Tests were done with the1. Bucket down2. Bucket up3. Bucket filled
This result shows the bucket down and the operator in a fixed position.
• Dark indicates no visibility
• Opaque indicates restricted visibility
24
The Solution
This drawing shows the approximate locations of the 4 cameras, and 2 monitors installed on the loader
25
The Solution
This picture shows the results with a quad camera system mounted on the unit.
Results were the same with bucket up or down.
Quite spectacular.
26
The Solution
Comparison???
27
The Solution
This picture shows the results with a full bucket of ore.
The full bucket impedes forward visibility but the opposite camera mitigates this somewhat
28
The Solution
This picture shows the Line of Site with a full bucket and the operator standing.
29
The Solution
Conclusion;1.The proposed four-camera system eliminated all blind spots on the side of the machine opposite to where the operator sits.
2.It substantially improved line of sight to ground compared with a no camera system.
3.It provided line of sight to a standing pedestrian 1.7m tall around nearly the entire perimeter of the machine.
4.The exceptions are located behind the seated position of the operator, at the intersection between rear camera and back right camera and against the machine along the opposite-side to the operator.
30
The Solution
31
The Solution
Worker
Rear Cab Window View Rear & Side
Camera View
32
The Solution
WorkerRear Cab View
Rear & Side Camera View
Rear Cab Window View Worker
33
The Solution
WorkerRear Cab View
Rear & Side Camera View
Rear Cab Window View Worker
34
The Solution
WorkerRear Cab View Side Cab
Window View Rear & Side Camera View
Worker
35
The Solution
WorkerRear Cab View
Front & Side Camera View
Front & Side Cab Window View
Worker
36
The Solution
Worker
Front Cab Window View
Worker
Front & Side Camera View
37
The Solution
Worker
Worker Front Cab Window View Front & Side
Camera View
38
The Solution
Toro 1400 with 2 rear facing cameras.
39
The Solution
Toro 1400 with 2 front facing cameras
40
The Solution
Cab Monitor Layout
41
The Solution
Cab Monitor Layout looking Rearward
42
The Solution
Cab Monitor Layout looking Forward
43
The Solution
- To date;- 3 loaders have been equipped with a camera
system- 1 mobile rockbreaker has been equipped- 1 EJC 30 ton truck equipped- 5 loaders are scheduled to be equipped
within the next month- Capital dollars are being approved to equip
the fleet with an enhanced visibility system for all larger equipment types.
44
Acknowledgments
- The Winstead Group - Dave Windfield, cameras, monitors and installation
- Dr Tammy Eger, Dr Alison Godwin - “Center for Research in Occupational Safety &
Health” - Laurentian University
- Sandvik Mining – use of their facilities for test purposes.
- Xstrata Copper Mobile Maintenance Team - Bob Peeken, Wayne Aldred- With the cooperation of the OHS Team.
45
Questions