Equipment Visibility Presentation

1. 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 Because of the concern, a number of projects were started at Kidd; • 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.

10. The Solution • 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. areas notification flashing blue lights 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. New types of LED strobe lights are to replace our old ones which better address light pollution. We also are currently looking at enhancing the flag pole with LED Whips.

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.

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 • 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. Pedestrian no longer visible Pedestrian

17. The Solution • Presentations were given to all crews identifying the “Danger” or “No Zone” complete with examples. • Here are a few

18. Operator eye level 17 ft above ground level Area of fully obstructed view Area of Limited visibility Material Handler Caution: No Zone pivots when the equipment pivots

19. 16’ 0” 8’ 2” Operator eye level 6 ft - 3 in. above ground level 8’ 2” 3’ 10” 12’ 5” 12’ 1” 18’ 7” Bulldozer

20. 11’ 7” Operator eye level 5 ft - 5 in. Above ground level 11’ 5” 21’ 8” 4’ 10” 6’ 1” 3’ 1” 6’ 3” Bobcat

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 the • Bucket down • Bucket up • 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; The proposed four-camera system eliminated all blind spots on the side of the machine opposite to where the operator sits. It substantially improved line of sight to ground compared with a no camera system. It provided line of sight to a standing pedestrian 1.7m tall around nearly the entire perimeter of the machine. 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 Rear Cab Window View Rear & Side Camera View Worker

32. The Solution Rear Cab Window View Rear Cab View Worker Rear & Side Camera View Worker

33. The Solution Rear Cab Window View Rear Cab View Rear & Side Camera View Worker Worker

34. The Solution Worker Side Cab Window View Rear Cab View Rear & Side Camera View Worker

35. The Solution Front & Side Cab Window View Worker Rear Cab View Front & Side Camera View Worker

36. The Solution Worker Front Cab Window View Front & Side Camera View Worker

37. The Solution Worker Front Cab Window View Worker 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