vehicle and personnel collision warning systems foropen ...docs\vehicle and personnel collision...

$: Vehicle and Personnel Collision Warning Systems forOpen ...docs\Vehicle and Personnel Collision Warning... · 0 Vehicle and Personnel Collision Warning Systems forOpen Pit and Underground$
0

Vehicle and Personnel Collision Warning Systems for Open Pit and Underground 17 April 2008

Steven Niven

Anglo Coal Regional Engineering Services

1

ProfileSteven Niven

Control and Instrumentation Engineer Anglo Coal Regional Engineering Services

Qualified as An Electrical Technician British Steel Corporation 1978South Wales

Emigrated to South Africa 1983 and worked at Highveld Steel

Joined Anglo Coal 1985 GoedehoopColliery

Transferred to Anglo Coal Regional Engineering Services 2006

Presenter

2

Content

• Introduction• Accident Statistics• Collision Avoidance Road Map• Collision Avoidance Working Group• Underground Collision Warning

Current Technologies• Surface Collision Warning• Types of Collisions and Scenarios

Current Technologies – Slow Speed Close Proximity– High Speed Long Range– Technology Comparison

• Anglo Coal Underground Development Path• Anglo Coal Open Pit Development Path• Development Path

Presentation Content

3

I would like to share with you today, some of the technologies available, developments, progress, and the learning points with regards to collision warning, for both Underground and Open Pit operations within Anglo Coal.

IntroductionIntroduction

This presentation is not to endorse any one product or company but to give an overview of the various technologies, what is available and currently in use.

4

Accident Statistics

Anglo Coal Vehicle Accident Statistics

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2006 2007 2008

Anglo Coal Accidents -Pe ople injure d 2006-2008 YTD

Fatal LTI MTC FAC

2006 - 2008

In 2006 8 people were fatally injured involving heavy surface mining equipment within Anglo American.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Sur face Underground

Anglo Coal V ehicle Accidents 2006-2008 YTD

2006

2007

2008

5

Mandate

The purpose of the working group was to:

• Investigate and determine what technologies were currently available to assist in preventing collisions between vehicles and vehicle and vehicle to personnel.

• What system were in use and their application.

• Were any system in development.

• To produce a report with a summary of the various technologies and recommendations.

Colliosion Avoidance Working Group

6

Surface Collision Warning


7

Types of Collisions

• Close Proximity Slow Speed.Within 20 meters at less than 15km/h

• Long Range High speed At speeds from 15 to 60km/h

Open Pit Operations

8

Open Pit Collision Scenarios

9

These systems work on the principal of detecting potential threats (light vehicles or other haul trucks) in the direction of travel and provide sufficient warning time to allow the operator to take evasive action, either by applying brakes or slowing down to a controllable safe speed before swerving to avoid the vehicle.

Types of Collision Warning Systems

Slow Speed Close Proximity

High Speed Long Range

Typically these systems are designed to assist the operator at start-up (before moving the machine) or whilst reversing.

10



Collision Warning Equipment

11

Slow Speed Close ProximityVehicle Blind Spots

12

Available Equipment

Front, Side and Rear Camera coverage

• Brigade• Safety Vision• Orlarco• CAT ( WAVS)


Blind Spot Cameras

13

Camera View Split Screen

FRONT RIGHT

LEFT

14

Cameras

Cameras ( Blind Spot) Advantages• Low Cost• Off the shelf• Can be integrated into other systems

Disadvantages• Cannot work in all weather conditions• Cameras must be kept clean

FLIR ( Forward Looking Infra Red) Pathfinder, Delphi

LEFT

FRONT

RIGHT


15

Kriel Colliery

Pathfinder FLIR Camera

Pit to Tip

16

Advantages• Relatively Low Cost• Works in all weather conditions• Self Contained• Can be integrated into other systems

Disadvantages• Nuisance alarms

Radar ( Radio Detection and Ranging)Evaluation of radar alarms by Ruff(2000)

Recommended layout of a five radar unit from

Detection ranges for Preco radar as measured by NIOSH.


17

Low Frequency (RFID)

Typically < 500kHzRange 0 – 20 meters depending on power output

Hasardavert ( Fredrick Mining)Nautilus Buddy Haul Truck SystemBooyco ElectronicsBecker Electronics

Slow Speed Close ProximityHasardavert

Detection Field around Vehicle

18

To summarise all these systems can be used to prevent slow speedcollisions, but in some way they all have their limitations

• RFID requires everything to be tagged• Cameras do not work so well in bad weather and require regular cleaning• Radar if not set correctly can cause nuisance alarms.

But a combination of technologies can provide a good solution.

SummarySlow Speed Close Proximity

19


High Speed Long Range

Collision Warning Equipment

20

High Speed Long RangeLong Range Radar

Range 0 – 150 meters

Advantages•Works in all weather conditions•Self Contained•Intelligent system•Can be integrated into other systems

Disadvantages•Nuisance alarms

21

High Speed Long RangeHigh Frequency (RFID)

Typically > 500kHzRange 0 – 150 meters

AMT (Australia)Becker Electronics

Advantages• Proven technology• Positive identificationDisadvantages• All vehicle require tagging• Range fluctuations• Multiple alarms

80 – 100 Mtrs20 - 30 Mtrs

30 - 50 Mtrs

AMT CAS/CAM

BECKER

CAS 300

CAS Controller

DPOD Recei ver

Vehicle Transponder

(TAG)

AMT CAS / CAM

22

Range 0 - 200 meters

Advantages• Low Cost• Self Contained

Disadvantages• Effectiveness reduced in heavy rain

or snow

High Speed Long rangeLIDAR ( Laser Detection and Ranging)

23

Many auto mobile manufacturers already offer adaptive cruise control ( ACC ) Collision Warning with Auto Braking (CWAB) or Lane Departure Warning (LDW) as an option on their vehicles.

These adaptive cruise control (ACC) systems, use either laser beams or radar to measure the distance from the vehicle they are in, to the car ahead and itsspeed relative to theirs. If a car crosses into the lane ahead, and the distance is now less than the preset minimum (typically a 1 – 2 second interval of separation), the system applies the brakes, slowing the car with a maximum deceleration of 3.5 m/s2 until it is following at the desired distance. If the leading car speeds up or moves out of the lane, the system opens the throttleuntil the trailing car has returned to the cruise control speed set by the driver

Note that to avoid liability claims in the event of collisions between cars equipped with adaptive cruise control systems, manufacturers of these systems and the automotive companies that use them are careful not to refer to them as SAFETY DEVICES. Instead, they are being marketed as DRIVER AIDS, mere conveniences made possible by new technologies.

Lidar / Radar / Vision Systems

24

High Speed Long RangeGPS SystemsAcumine, FLARM

• Range 0 – 500 meters typically restricted by RF range

• Accuracy 3 - 5 metres

• Highly selective 3D track prediction minimizes "nuisance warnings"

• Simple driver cabin installation, not requiring specialists

• No radio network infrastructure needed, works anywhere with GPS

• Well proven technology outside of mining

• Recalculation and retransmission every second

• Usable in all vehicle types (Haul trucks, light vehicles, graders, etc)

configurable vehicle size, type and characteristic

25

Other Technologies Wireless Mesh Networks

A system is still in development between Freeport (Phelps Dodge) and Motorola

Vision Systems

Mobileye

Delphi

These systems are already in use in many on road vehicles for lane departure, object detection and adaptive cruise control.

26

Comparison of CAS Technologies

SPEED Speed DistanceReaction of

operator timeSafe swerv ing

speed

Safe Swerv ing

speed

Distance trav elled before brakes applied

Ti me to bring truck to a complete stop

Total distance neede d to bring ha ul truck to a stop (incl uding reaction time)

Short Range Radar

Low Freq. RFID

Mesh Networ

k

High Freq. RFID GPS

Long distance radar

km/h m/s m sec km/h m/s m sec m Preco Hazard 3DP PDCASCAM Accumine Vorad

5 1.4 0.92 0 5 1.4 0.0 1.3 0.9 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

10 2.8 1.58 1 10 2.8 2.8 4.6 6.5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

15 4.2 6.17 1 15 4.2 4.2 6.0 12.4 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

20 5.6 14.7 1 20 5.6 5.6 5.3 20.3 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

25 6.9 23 1 20 5.6 6.9 8.6 36.9 No No No Yes Yes Yes



40 11.1 58.8 1 20 5.6 11.1 12.6 81.0 No No No Yes Yes Yes

45 12.5 74.4 1 20 5.6 12.5 13.9 99.4 No No No No Yes Yes

50 13.9 91.3 1 20 5.6 13.9 15.1 119.1 No No No No Yes Yes

55 15.3 111.2 1 20 5.6 15.3 16.6 141.8 No No No No Yes Yes

Will the Collision Avoidance Technology be able to warn the operator in time to allow him to bring his machine to a full stop

to allow him to avoid a potential collision?

Summary of Technologies

27


Anglo Coal Surface Collision Warning System

Road Map

28

Anglo CoalCamera System

• June 2007 installation of a 3 camera Orlarco system at Klienkopjiesto evaluate

• June 2007 testing of Path Finder Forward looking Infrared cameras(FLIR) at Kriel and Klienkopjies

• September 2007 installation of (Brigade) cameras and FLIR cameras on 5 Haul trucks at Kriel colliery

• September 2007 commenced installation of combined Becker RFIDand camera collision avoidance system at Landau. (decision made to keep camera systems separate)

• March 2008 Contract awarded for the installation ofcameras including FLIR for haul trucks and various vehicles.

• March to September 2008 Rollout of Cameras to all operations Mafube, Kriel, Isibonello, Landau, Klienkopjies and New Vaal

29

RFID Systems• May 2007 order placed for trial of RFID system at Landau • September 2007 commenced installation of Becker RFID and

camera collision avoidance system at Landau to evaluate. Vehicles equipped: 4 Haul trucks, 2 Dump trucks,( 4 Antenna Systems) Grader, FEL, ADT, Shovel, Dozer and 16 bakies

• November 2007 training of operators and engineering personnel• December/ January 2007 testing of system• January 2008 operator feedback survey (positive)• March 2008 Contract awarded for the group installation of Cameras

and RFID • April to December 2008 Rollout to all operations Landau,Mafube,

Kriel, Isibonello, Klienkopjies and New Vaal

Anglo Coal

30

Project Successes and Challenges• Regular meeting with supplier during project • Buy in from operators and honest feedback• Involvement and co operation from mine personnel• Sharing of information and learning's with ACA Drayton and their

experiences on the testing of the AMT RFID system• Delays in equipment delivery• The RFID antennas were modified to incorporate the Dpods and antennas into one unit not two separate pieces of equipment new electronic boards had to be designed, manufactured and tested

• Incorporated vehicle tags into antenna electronics for simplification of system on larger vehicles new circuit boards designed and manufactured

• CAS unit software rewritten to accommodate changes to tagsamplifiers and introduce a second triggering level for LDV’s

Collision Warning Open Pit Operations

31

Collision Warning Underground Operations

Underground Collision Warning

32

Fredrick Mining Tram Guard

Collision Warning Underground Operations

Typically < 500kHzRange 6 – 20 meters depending on power output limitations

Booyco ElectronicsTram Guard ( Fredrick Mining)Becker Electronics Nautilus

Advantages• Stable field• Multiple detection zones• Ability to penetrate stick sidesDisadvantages• Cost

Low Frequency (RFID)

Field Generators

PAD worn by the miner

Vehicle Unit

33


Anglo Coal Underground Collision Warning System

Road Map

34

• March 2006 Booyco/VAK CWS 500 system introduced to Greenside Mapula section for testing.

• May 2007 Modification to introduce two zone detection and driverwarning (CWS 800).

• October 2007 Final testing of CWS 800• November 2007 CPC approval for project approval to roll out to all

operations.• January 2008 commencement of roll out project to Greenside,

Goedehoop, Kriel, New Denmark• October 2008 completion of project

Collision Warning Underground OperationsAnglo Coal Road Map

35

CWS 800 Components

CWS 800 Components

36

Antennas installed on drivers side

Antennas installed diagonally opposite

Plotting of fields around Vehicle

Antennas installed on opposite side

37

The development of a Last Line of Support (LLOS) warning device had been undertaken in November 2006, as there was no commercially available equipment.

Several different technologies were initially tested with some success but there were limitation for these technologies in the underground environment. (Infrared, Ultrasonic)

A decision was made to adapt the Underground Personnel Warning System technology (Low Frequecy RFID) to suit this application. The prototype has been completed and will be sent to Kriel in April 2008 for testing and evaluation.

Challenges for this device are, to limit the power consumption so that the device can be powered from standard cap lamp batteries, with a four day life before being changed, ExIa certification, and to produce a narrow detection field .

2nd Last Line of Support Warning Device

38

•2nd last line proximity warning device – one unit built at Booyco, will be installed at Kriel by end March for testing

•Will use the same technology as the personnel warning system

2nd Last Line of Support warning Device

39

References

CDC RI 9672 Ruff, T. (2007). Recommendations for Evaluating & Implementing Proximity Warning Systems on Surface Mining Equipment.

AAC April 2007 Collision Avoidance Systems Technical Report

Ruff, T. and Holden, T. (2003). Preventing collisions involving surface mining

Acknowledgments

To the Anglo American Collision working Group

H. Faul (ATD); D. Janicijevic (Anglo Platinum); O. Munoz (Anglo Base); A. Naidoo (Anglo Ferrous); V. Nhlapo (Anglo Platinum) ; S. Niven (Anglo Coal); E. Riffo (Anglo Base); M Ruplal (ATD)

Acknowledgements and References

40

Headway Monitoring and Warning

41

Lane Deviation Warning Day Time

42

Lane Deviation Warning Night Time

43

Blind Spot Monitoring

44

Adaptive Cruise Control and Braking

45

Discussion

46

THANK YOU

AND LETS NOT MEET BY ACCIDENT

vehicle and personnel collision warning systems foropen ...docs\vehicle and personnel collision...

Documents