Mobile Mining Equipment Operator Visibility Investigation Principal Investigator(s): Alan W. Salmoni (Laurentian University) Co-Investigator(s): Tammy Eger, Robert Whissell, Yves Lajoie (Laurentian University); Jim Cluff (Mining and Aggregates Safety and Health Association) Sponsoring Institution: Laurentian University Objective The objective of this research was to make design recommendations for LHDs and haul trucks used in mining that would lead to improved operator visibility and ultimately to a reduction of visibility-based accidents. The steps necessary to accomplish this general objective included: create 3D (AutoCad) design models of frequently used models of LHDs and haul trucks from pervious information gathered on operator visibility problems and an understanding of the methods reported in the research literature, develop improved strategies for quantifying operator visibility using a (virtual) computer environment created by Jack software, test different design modifications and report which changes had the potential to improve operator visibility disseminate these results to manufacturers and mining companies. Method The goal of this research project was to identify vehicle design modifications in order to improve line of sight from the operator’s position. In order to be objective a quantitative, environmentally valid methodology had to be established: first, 3D computer animated drawings of the mining vehicles were imported into the JACK computer environment second, stationary line of sight was evaluated via a “visibility audit” and lines of sight to important visual locations in the work environment were evaluated using a “target audit” finally, results from the visibility audit and target audit were used to identify potential LHD vehicle design modifications, including adding cameras. In addition, the impact of these design changes on the operator (postural load and angles) was assessed. Results LHD Vehicles Lines of sight from the following six different LHD vehicles were evaluated: TORO 011, TORO 450, Wagner St 8B, Elphinstone 1700 G, EJC 210, MTI LT350. The design, size and placement of LHD vehicle “components” can adversely affect visibility. Visibility improvements afforded by design modifications can be determined quickly using computer simulation. The following modifications to LHD vehicles have shown promise: reorienting cab posts to open up visibility to the left corner slimming of lights and light brackets rounding light and light bracket design rounding the cylinder covering the boom and hoses employing cut-out machine structures that block line of sight lowering the height of the engine profile eliminating bucket teeth redesigning the bucket to angle away slightly at the corners avoiding the use of oversized buckets lowering the profile of the mud guards avoiding placing remote boxes in areas that restrict line of sight moving vents and cylinders that protrude from top of machine increasing operator sitting height in the cab when possible seating the operator closer to the front window allowing seat rotation installing cameras. Haul Trucks Lines of sight from the following three haulage trucks were evaluated: TORO 40D, EJC 417, EJC 430. The following modifications to haulage truck vehicles have shown promise: lowering the profile of the front end of the truck (engine area) sinking the air intake cylinder and muffler sliming canopy posts (add more window openings) installing a camera at the center rear below the dump box reducing the profile height of the wheel well covers. Publications Tammy Eger, Alan Salmoni, Robert Whissell (2004), “Factors influencing load-haul-dump operator line of sight in underground mining.” Applied Ergonomics 35:93-103. Eger, T., Salmoni, A.W., and Whissell, R. (2004), “Factors Influencing Load-Haul-Dump Operator Line of Sight in Underground Mining.” Applied Ergonomics 35(2):173-182. Jeffkins, A., Eger, T., Salmoni, A., and Whissell, R. (2004), “Virtual JACK in a Virtual Machine: Computer Simulation Is Beneficial for Investigating Visibility during Mobile Mining Equipment Operation.” Ergonomics in Design 12(2). For more information: asalmoni@uwo.ca Mise en garde