Autonomous mining equipment (Owen Barry)
4 likes741 views
This document summarizes autonomous mining projects in Australia and issues related to autonomous equipment. It describes several levels of automation from fully manual to fully autonomous operations. It then discusses specific autonomous projects using haul trucks, dozers, and drill rigs in New South Wales. The document outlines potential issues with autonomous equipment including safety, task planning, communications, and change management. It also describes an incident where a semi-autonomous dozer collided with a manned excavator, injuring no one. The document concludes with recommendations around controls to prevent workers from entering autonomous equipment areas and having physical barriers between manned and autonomous zones.
Autonomous mining equipment (Owen Barry)
- 2. What is Automation1 •The technique, method, or system of operating and controlling a process or machine by automatic means with minimal human intervention. 1Definition from “Guideline for the Implementation of Autonomous Systems in Mining”
- 3. Automation techniques1 •Automatic • A process or part of a process when a machine follows well-defined rules. •Remote control • A type of operation where the functionality and operator interface are the same or similar on the machine but the controller is separate from the machine and is under human supervision while the machine is operated in line-of-sight or tele-remote mode. •Semi-autonomous • A process or machine that is intended to accomplish a portion of assigned task(s) within a set of defined operations without human intervention or direct control. •Autonomous • A process or machine that is intended to accomplish task(s) within a set of defined operations without human intervention or direct control. 1Definitions from “Guideline for the Implementation of Autonomous Systems in Mining”
- 4. Levels of Automation •Level 0 – No automation •Level 1 – Operator assistance •Level 2 – Semi-autonomous control •Level 3 – Conditionally autonomous control •Level 4 – Highly autonomous control •Level 5 – Fully autonomous control
- 5. Autonomous Mining Projects – NSW •Wilpinjong – dozers •Level 2 •Maules Creek – Haul trucks •Level 4 – project phase •Mt Pleasant – Drill rigs •Level 2 – project phase •North Parkes – Load haul dump with boggers •Level 2
- 6. Other projects •Continuous miners •Auto-cut cycles • Level 1 •Longwall •Shearer • auto-cut cycles • Level 1 •Roof supports • Auto advance • Level 1
- 7. Issues for autonomous equipment •Positional and orientation awareness •Task planning •Environmental conditions •Communications •Functional safety •Change management Technology
- 8. Issues for autonomous equipment •Boundaries of an AOZ •Barriers/fences •Geofences •Access points •Fence in •Fence out •Access to the AOZ •Proximity detection systems •Permits •All stops •Change management •Boundaries Access to autonomous operating zone
- 9. Issues for autonomous equipment Shared workspaces •Maintenance activities •Refuelling •Vehicle inspections •Repairs •Recovery of faulted vehicles •Methods for operators/trades to approach autonomous vehicle to make safe •Other users of the AOZ • Water carts • Graders • Shotfirers and their explosives • Personnel transports
- 10. Issues for autonomous equipment Workforce skills •Task planners •Operators •Maintenance workers
- 11. Autonomous equipment What can go wrong? •autonomous haul truck and manned water cart collide on Jimblebar mine •two autonomous trucks collided at Jimblebar mine •two driverless dump trucks at Christmas Creek mine •SATS dozer and excavator collision at Wilpinjong Mine
- 12. Legislative changes – proposed •Loss of control of heavy earth moving machinery, irrespective of whether a person is at risk •All vehicle fires, irrespective of whether a person is at risk •Includes equipment controlled remotely or autonomously •Dangerous incident notification under clause 179 will still remain Notifications – clause 128 – High potential incidents
- 13. Incident – SATS dozer and manned excavator • A collision occurred between a Caterpillar D11T dozer operating semi-autonomously and a manned Hitachi EX1200 hydraulic excavator. • The excavator operator was scaling a section of a highwall in the operating area of the semi-autonomous dozer fleet and travelled into an active slot, in the path of a dozer working in semi-autonomous mode. • The dozer was reversing to commence the next programmed push, when it contacted the rear of the excavator, it pushed the excavator approximately 1.5 metres sideways and then began to spin its tracks. • After five seconds the dozer’s semi-autonomous system identified that it had experienced track slip and stopped tramming as programmed.
- 14. • Three modes of operation for SATS enabled dozers • manually - with an operator on board, • remote control operation – from tele-remote control station, or • semi-autonomous state by an operator in the control station. • First implemented in 2015 with a single Caterpillar D11T dozer. • Increased to three dozers in 2017 • Fourth dozer added in 2018. Semi-Autonomous Tractor System (SATS)
- 15. Semi-Autonomous Tractor System (SATS) Operating Area…
- 16. Pre-Incident: • Early in the shift on 27 May 2019, Hitachi EX1200 Excavator (EX1014) had scaled the northern highwall and thrown the material behind, forming a windrow. • Mid-morning, a mining supervisor instructed the operator of Excavator (EX1014) to leave the dozer push area and establish an edge windrow on the bench above. • At the completion of this task, the operator had a crib break. • At the end of his break, the Excavator (EX1014) proceeded back into the SATS avoidance zone from the north, scaling the highwall toward the south. • Immediately prior to the incident, the SATS operator was operating a CAT D11T Dozer (DZ2010) that had paused because it required operator input. • Excavator (EX1014) proceeded past the end of the windrow and continued scaling the highwall. • At that time, CAT D11T Dozer (DZ2003) completed the push and commenced reversing.
- 17. The Incident: • Dozer (DZ2003) was travelling in second gear at approximately 7 kilometres/hour. As the ripper box contacted the rear of Excavator (EX1014). • Dozer (DZ2003) continued to drive, pushing Excavator (EX1014) sideways approximately 1.5 metres. • At this point, the dozer lost traction. After five seconds of tracks slipping, SATS alarmed and stopped Dozer (DZ2003). • From initial contact to Dozer (DZ2003) stopping took approximately 14 seconds. • As contact was made between the machines, the operator of Excavator (EX1014) attempted to call the SATS operator on the radio to stop the dozer. • This was unsuccessful, due to radio channel selection and radio traffic. • The excavator operator had no other means to stop the semi-autonomous dozer. • The operator was not injured.
- 18. SATS Operator Monitor at the time of the incident…
- 19. SATS Operator Monitor at the time of the incident…
- 20. Incident scene immediately following the incident…
- 21. Recommendations: Analysis of the causal factors involved in this incident are continuing. The circumstances of this incident should prompt mine operators to review their safety management systems, focusing on: • Controls in place to prevent workers inadvertently entering an area where automated equipment is operating. • Confirm the hierarchy of controls have been adequately used when developing controls to manage interactions between manned equipment that interacts with semi-autonomous and tele-remote equipment. • Having a suitable physical barrier in place relevant to the equipment being operated, when segregation is required between manned equipment and semi-autonomous and tele- remote equipment. • Scheduling of regular workplace inspections by supervisors of workers operating adjacent to or within semi-autonomous, autonomous and tele-remote operation zones.
- 22. Questions?