WO2025015382A1

WO2025015382A1 - Safety method and system

Info

Publication number: WO2025015382A1
Application number: PCT/AU2024/050769
Authority: WO
Inventors: Alan GEWERC; John Tran
Original assignee: Fortescue Ltd
Current assignee: Fortescue Ltd
Priority date: 2023-07-19
Filing date: 2024-07-18
Publication date: 2025-01-23
Anticipated expiration: 2026-01-19

Abstract

A method of mining, comprising: monitoring safety events at a mine site; measuring a presence of safety factors at the mine site; determining a correlation between the presence of said safety factors and an incidence of said safety events; and using said correlation to identify and prescribe to an operator actions that are required to maintain and/or improve safety at the mine site.

Description

SAFETY METHOD AND SYSTEM

TECHNICAL FIELD

The present invention relates to a method of and system for performing a process, and more specifically, but not exclusively, to a method of and system for mining with improved operational safety.

BACKGROUND

Examples of the present invention relate to the mining of material from a mine site.

Understandably, safety of operators within a mine site is of upmost importance. Several variables or factors may contribute to the safety (or lack thereof) of operators on a mine site, including, by way of non-limiting example, ongoing scheduled maintenance of equipment/machinery, the provision and availability of appropriate safety gear and adequate and the sufficiency of training and engagement of equipment operators.

Typically, the safety of a mining site is reflected by its Total Recordable Injury Frequency Rate (TRIFR). This is a statistic that calculates the frequency of recordable work-related injuries per million hours worked by operators on a mine site.

In recent times, Australian miners have placed an increased level of importance on monitoring TRIFR and implementing reduced targets, by implementing procedures that seek to achieve these targets across their mine sites. Such adoption of TRIFR as a core operational metric at mine sites underlines the important role that safety plays in modem mining. This being said, as a lagging indicator, TRIFR has no predictive value. That is, being reliant on historical data from previous periods where the operating environment may have been different, TRIFR does not capture a "real time" representation of how safe a mine site is.

Against this backdrop, benchmarking tools have been developed that seek to complement TRIFR- based monitoring and policy making. Such tools may, for example, seek to track safety performance over time, and/or to provide a "benchmark" of safety performance across a particular mine site or mining organisation against others. Notably, however, such tools operate at a strategic or policy-based level and do not identify or provide specific actions required to improve safety at a mine site. Furthermore, the data that is used by such tools is typically survey data that may be skewed by an operator's impression of safety as opposed to actual safety.

Within this context, there is a need for a method of and system for performing a process that promotes improved operational safety, or to at least provide the public with a useful choice. The present invention was conceived with these shortcomings in mind.

SUMMARY

In a first aspect, the invention provides a method, comprising: performing a process at a worksite; measuring a presence of safety factors at the worksite; determining a correlation between the presence of said safety factors and an incidence of safety events at the worksite; and using said correlation to prescribe actions associated with the process that are required to maintain and/or improve safety at the worksite.

The worksite may be a mine site, with the process comprising mining and/or processing mined material with plant equipment.

In some embodiments, the method may comprise the step of identifying the safety factors at the worksite. The safety factors may be classified as a promotor or detractor of safety at the worksite in a classifying step.

The method may comprise the step of monitoring the incidence of safety events at the worksite. The monitoring step may include recording operator injuries and/or equipment breakdowns on the worksite.

In some embodiments, the method may comprise the step of providing a safety score for the worksite based on the measured safety factors and the associated correlation of said factors with the incidence of safety events. The safety score may be updated in real time.

The measuring step may include reading data from a detector in the form of a sensor that is mounted to plant equipment on the worksite.

In some embodiments, the correlation may be determined by calculating a ratio between the presence of said safety factors and the incidence of said safety events with a controller. The correlation may be used to prescribe an order in which maintenance tasks should be undertaken on equipment. The correlation may be used to prescribe actions directly to plant equipment. The prescribed actions are performed autonomously by the plant equipment.

In a second aspect, the invention provides a method of mining, comprising: monitoring safety events at a mine site; measuring a presence of safety factors at the mine site; determining a correlation between the presence of said safety factors and an incidence of said safety events; and using said correlation to identify and prescribe to an operator actions that are required to maintain and/or improve safety at the mine site.

The method may further comprise the step of warning the operator when a safety event is imminent.

In a third aspect, the invention provides a system, comprising: equipment adapted for performing a process at a worksite; at least one detector within the worksite that is adapted to detect a presence or absence of safety factors associated with the operation of the equipment; and a controller that is in communication with the sensor, the controller being configured to determine a correlation between the presence of safety factors and an incidence of safety events at the worksite; wherein the controller uses said correlation to prescribe actions associated with operation of the equipment that are required to maintain and/or improve safety at the worksite.

In some embodiments, the worksite may be a mine site, with the process comprising mining and/or processing mined material with plant equipment.

The at least one detector may include a sensor that is mounted to plant equipment.

In some embodiments, the controller may be a central controller and the equipment may include at least one autonomous machine having a local controller, with the local controller being configured to receive a message from the central controller and perform an associated prescribed action autonomously.

The system may further comprise an indicator that displays, to an operator, the prescribed actions that are required to maintain and/or improve safety at the worksite. In some embodiments, the worksite may be one of a plurality of worksites, with each worksite having: equipment adapted for performing a process; and at least one detector that is adapted to detect a presence or absence of safety factors associated with the operation of equipment at the respective worksite; wherein the controller is in communication with the at least one detector of each of the worksites such that the correlation is determined from the safety factor presence and incidence of safety events of each worksite combined.

The controller may be configured to calculate a safety score for each worksite, with the safety score of a respective one of the worksites being based on the measured safety factors at that worksite and the associated correlation of said safety factors with the incidence of safety events.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The invention will now be described, by way of non-limiting example only, with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which:

Figure 1 schematically illustrates a system according to an embodiment of the invention, showing the system deployed at a mine site;

Figure 2 schematically illustrates a method according to an embodiment of the invention;

Figures 3A - 3C schematically illustrate a method of calculating a safety score for a worksite in accordance with the method of Figure 2;

Figure 4 provides an example of the safety score as calculated in accordance with the method of Figure 3 A tracked over time; and

Figures 5 to 9 provide examples of a dashboard interface that may be used to prescribe actions to an operator at a worksite.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

In the following detailed description, reference is made to accompanying drawings which form a part of the detailed description. It will be readily understood that the aspects of the present disclosure, as generally described herein and illustrated in the drawings may be arranged, substituted, combined, separated and designed in a wide variety of different configurations, all of which are contemplated in this disclosure.

Unless defined otherwise, all technical and scientific terms used herein have the same meaning as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which this invention belongs. Although any methods and materials similar or equivalent to those described herein can also be used in the practice or testing of the present invention, a limited number of the example methods and materials are described herein.

In general terms, embodiments of the invention shown in the Figures relates to a system 10 for performing a process with improved operational safety and a method 100 that is carried out by said system 10. The system 10 is adapted to be deployed or otherwise installed at a worksite 12.

In the following passages, the invention will be described within a mining context - i.e. the worksite 12 being a mine site and the process being the mining and/or processing mined material. It is understood, however, that the invention is not limited to mining per se, and the system 10 and/or method 100 may have application in other industries such as, for example, oil and gas extraction and refinement, building and construction, and manufacturing.

Such mined material may be metalliferous or non-metalliferous material. Iron, gold and copper containing ores are examples of such metalliferous materials. Coal is an example of a non- metalliferous material. The mined material may be material that has been mined in surface (i.e. open cut) or underground operations.

The term "mine site" as used herein is understood to include (a) a site where material is mined and thereafter transferred to a stockpile and/or processed and (b) a site where material that has previously been mined and stockpiled is stored and/or transferred to and processed.

Examples of mine sites where material is mined include both open cut and underground mines. The mined material may be mined by equipment via drilling and blasting operations or by surface miners excavating material from a pit floor with hand-held tools or machinery. The size of the mined material depends on the type of mining and the materials handling capabilities of the equipment in a mine, as well as the type of material. Examples of mined sites where mined material is processed include sites that include equipment for processing ore that may include, for example, comminution and/or screening of the mined material to a standard size range through to processes that beneficiate or upgrade the mined material to produce a marketable product of a desired specification or grade. Such processing may be wet or dry.

Figure 1 shows an embodiment of the mining system 10 deployed at an above-ground or "open pit" mine site 12. It is understood, however, that the invention is not limited to above-ground mine sites and is equally applicable to underground mine sites.

The system 10 includes plant equipment 14 that is used for processing mined material at the mine site 12. In particular, examples of plant equipment 14 shown in the Figure include machinery such as load units 15 that are used for loading mined material from a stockpile 18 into vehicles such as tip trucks 20, with the tip trucks 20 then transporting said mined material onto a conveyor 22 which then communicates the mined material to comminution and screening equipment 25, 26.

The plant equipment 14 may include manned equipment - that is equipment that requires manual operation and/or control by an operator in direct proximity of the equipment - and/or autonomous equipment - that is equipment that does not require direct control by an operator but may, for example, require remote control and or oversight by an operator who is positioned within a different region of the mine site that is not in proximity of the equipment.

Whilst the above and the following description of the invention focuses on the processing of mined material at mine site 12, it is to be understood that, nevertheless, the invention is equally applicable to the mining of material at a mine site, where plant equipment 14 may include, for example, drills, excavators, conveyors and the like that are used to source material from a rock/ore body.

The system further includes at least one detector 16 that is disposed within the mine site 12. The at least one detector 16 is configured to detect a presence and/or an absence of safety factors within the mine site. For example, the detector may be adapted to output a signal upon positive detection of the presence of a respective safety factor, with the absence of said factor being inferable by the lack of such an output. The safety factors are associated with the operation of the plant equipment 14 at the mine site 12. The term "safety factor" as used herein is understood to refer to behaviors and activities that influence operator safety at the mine site. Such safety factors may have a positive impact on safety or a negative impact on safety. That is, safety factors may be categorized or otherwise classified as a promotor of safety or a detractor of safety. Promotors or promoting factors are those whose presence has a positive impact on operator safety and/or whose absence has a negative impact on operator safety. Detractors or detracting factors are those whose presence has a negative impact on operator safety and/or whose absence has a positive impact on operator safety.

The at least one detector 16 may be a sensor that is mounted or otherwise operably coupled to the plant equipment 14. For the avoidance of doubt, it is understood that the detector or detectors 16 need not be directly mounted or otherwise fitted to the equipment 14. Rather, the detectors 16 may be carried by an operatorthat is involved in the control of the equipment 14. To this end, it is also contemplated that in certain circumstances, the operator themselves may play the role of the detector 16, that is providing information that relates to the operation of the equipment 14 that they are tasked with controlling/overseeing.

As a first example, the detector may be a load sensor 28 that is mounted to or otherwise carried by the tip truck 20. The load sensor 28 may be used to provide load information relating to the payload being carried by the tip truck 20. In a somewhat similar example, the detector may be a fault or alert sensor 30 that is fitted to the conveyor 22 that is configured to provide fault information relating to an error condition of the conveyor 22.

By way of further example, the at least one detector 16 may include a GPS or positioning sensor 32 that is fitted to or otherwise associated with the plant equipment 14. The GPS 32 may be used to provide position information relating to the position of a moving load unit 15, and/or used to provide proximity information relating to a proximity of operators within a "high risk" zone of comminution equipment such as a crusher 24.

In yet a further example, the at least one detector 16 may comprise a camera 34 or other imagebased detection device that is used to assess the operating activity of the equipment 14 in the mine site 12 and/or the behavior of the operators thereof. It is contemplated that such activities and behaviors may include, for example, whether moving pieces of equipment 14 are travelling with or outside of designated zones and whether operators are entering into restricted zones and/or exhibiting appropriate use of personal protective equipment.

As a further example still, the detector 16 may include a record 36. The record may, in some embodiments, be a computer or other form of electronic processing device 36 that includes a memory comprising a database or record relating to safety factors such as, for example, the maintenance activities for the equipment 14. In particular, the database may comprise a plurality of registers, with each register being relating to a separate or distinct article of equipment 14. The record 36 is also used to monitor and store information relating to operator injuries at the mine site 12. Each operator injury represents a safety event. Other types of safety events may also be monitored at the mine site 12 by the record 36. Such safety events need not be limited to actual incidents resulting in operator injury, but may, for example, also include "near miss" type incidents and the like. It is understood, therefore, that the term "safety event" relates to incidents that are generally undesirable with respect to operator safety and welfare.

The system 10 further includes a controller 38. The controller 38 is in communication with the at least one detector 16. For example, the controller 38 may be in wireless communication with the at least one detector 16 via radio based communication such as Wi-Fi. The controller 38 may be any form of processing device. For example, the controller 38 may be a programmable logic controller (PLC), micro-processor or computer. The controller 38 and the processing device 36 may be one and the same, or, alternatively, provided as separate components, with the controller 38 being in communication with the processing device 36. The controller 38 may be fixed within the mine site 12 or may be a portable device that is carried by one or more operators. With respect to the illustrated embodiment, two controllers 38 are shown, each being in communication with the respective detectors 16.

The controller 38 is configured to determine a correlation between the presence or absence of safety factors and an incidence of safety events at the mine site. What is meant by this is that the controller may use mathematical algorithms to develop a ratio or equation that is then used to calculate a coefficient or similar that can be used to infer or otherwise provide a weighting of the impact a presence or absence of a specific safety factor at the mine site 12 has on the potential incidence of a safety event. Put differently, the coefficient or weighting is used to describe a relationship between the particular safety factor and the predicted safety of the mine site. The determined sign of the coefficient is then used to classify the safety factor in question as a promotor of safety (i.e. a safety factor whose presence increases safety at the mine site / decreases the likelihood of a safety event) or a detractor of safety (i.e. a safety factor whose presence decreases safety at the mine site / increases the likelihood of a safety event). By way of example, the controller 38 may use a regression analysis to identify positive and negative impact of the safety factors. In particular, acquired data associated with or otherwise relating to safety factors on a respective mine site 12 may be modelled against injuries at that mine site 12 with the impact of the respective safety factors being determined from the beta coefficient, with positive safety factors representing the safety promoters and the negative safety factors representing safety detractors.

A safety score is calculated by the controller 38. The safety score is calculated by the controller with regard to each of the respective safety factors measured at the mine site 12 together with the associated correlation each of said factors has with the incidence of safety events. In this manner, the safety score represents an assessment of the instantaneous safety of the mine site 12 at a moment in time. The higher the safety score, the more safe the mine site is inferred to be at a given time - noting that, in other embodiments, the scale of the score may be different in that a low safety score may relate to a higher level of safety and so on. For example, the safety score of a respective mine site 12 may be obtained by calculating the net sum of the combined safety promoters less the combined safety detractors.

It is understood that the safety score can be considered to be a live parameter, in that the score can be updated in real time based on incident data from the record 36 and measured safety factor presence data acquired by detectors 16. The score can, therefore, be used to track mine site 12 safety overtime.

The safety score can also be used to compare the safety of the mine site 12 in comparison with other mine sites 12 that are also using the system 10. In such embodiments, it is contemplated that a single or central controller 38 will be in communication with detectors 16 of each respective mine site 12, with the correlation between each safety factor and the incidence of safety events being determined from detector information and the incidence of safety events at each mine site 12 combined. In such embodiments, it is understood that the safety score of a respective one of the mine sites 12 is thus based on the measured safety factors at that mine site 12 and the associated correlation of said safety factors with the incidence of safety events (determined as a combined metric that is shared all mine sites). The controller 38 is equipped with an indicator means 40. The indicator 40 may, for example, be a terminal or dashboard that forms part of the controller 38. Alternatively, the indicator may be operably connected to but separate from the controller 38 - for example, the indicator may be hand-held or otherwise portable device that is carried by an operator, such as a tablet or mobile phone. The indicator 40 is adapted to prescribe, to an operator, actions that are required to be taken in order to maintain or improve safety at the mining site 12. Such actions relate to the operation of plant equipment 14.

For example, the indicator 40 may prescribe an action that requires additional tip trucks 20 to be allocated to specific regions/zones within the mining site should load sensors 28 associated with trucks 20 be measuring over capacity payloads on a regular basis.

By way of further example, the indicator 40 may prescribe an action to reduce or redistribute a feed to conveyor 22 should the fault sensor 30 be indicating an increase in the number of malfunctions or error conditions associated with the conveyor 22.

As a further example still, should the camera 34 indicate that moving pieces of equipment 14 such as trucks 20 are travelling outside designated zones and/or that there are hazards along a the planned routes thereof - i.e. increased levels of dust and/or traffic along a supply road - then a change to the route/path taken by the moving equipment 14 may be prescribed.

In another example, should a GPS sensor 32 indicate an increased frequency of operators moving into a "high risk" zone associated with load units 15 and/or camera 34 indicate a decreased compliance with PPE requirements by said operators, behavior based actions may be prescribed that seek to change or otherwise amend the behavior of said operators to improve or maintain safety. For instance, increased levels of PPE may be provided to operators associated with the load units 15 and/or changes be made to the designation of acceptable work zones and/or the way in which operators are alerted when entering "high risk" zones. Such changes may, by non-limiting example, include the prescription of personal alarm devices or PADs to be worn by all operators associated with the load units 15 or a change to the boundaries/proximity requirements at which an alarm is triggered.

By way of further example still, the indicator 40 may be configured to prescribe to an operator actions relating to the maintenance requirements of plant equipment 14. For instance, the indicator 40 may provide a schedule of overdue maintenance tasks read from record 36, and provide the operator with an order of priority in which said tasks should be undertaken in order to best maintain safety at the mine site 12.

The examples of the prescribing of actions outlined above may be considered to include both indirect and direct prescription of actions to the plant equipment 14. What is meant by this is that the indicator 40 may prescribe a set of actions to an operator of said machinery, or to other operators active within the mine site that may be affected by the operation of said equipment 14. It is also contemplated that the indicator and/or the controller may prescribe such actions directly to the plant equipment 14. For example, the controller 38 may act as a central controller that is operably connected to respective local controllers 42 of the plant equipment 14, with the central controller 38 prescribing activities directly to the respective equipment 14, which may then act upon the prescribed actions autonomously.

In some embodiments, it is contemplated that the indicator 40 and/or controller 38 is adapted to provide an alarm or warning to an operator that a safety event is imminent or that the likelihood of such a safety event has increased beyond an acceptable threshold level. For example, an alarm may be triggered if the calculated safety score moves outside ofthe acceptable threshold (i.e. below a required target score). Alternatively, an alarm may be triggered if the safety score at the mine site 12 has reduced by an unacceptable magnitude over a set time period - i.e. if the safety score has reduced by an unacceptable magnitude when compared to the score at a previous instance in time.

The warning maybe an audible warning or a visual warning that alerts an operator that the prescribed actions must be undertaken to improve safety at the mine site 12. Such warning is understood to be a predictive or proactive warning, with the prescribed actions thus being precautionary or preventative. By way of example, upon receiving such warning, an operator at the mine site 12 may interrogate the indicator 40 and/or screen in order to observe each of the safety factors that is contributing to the safety score, or, more particularly, to identify which safety factor has contributed most to the change in safety.

Once the contributing safety factor or factors have been identified, the operator is then able to take the prescribed actions in order to address the reduced level of safety. It is understood that the prescribed actions may not necessarily be directly related to the safety factor that has led to the reduced safety score. That is, while a reduced safety score may be accounted for by a change in the presence of a respective safety factor, the prescribed action in response need not relate to the same safety factor. In this way, resources can be allocated in the most cost efficient and time effective manner in order to restore or otherwise improve safety to a desired level.

By way of a non-limiting example, an operator may receive an alarm and interrogate the indicator 40, which may indicate that a safety score of the mine site 12 has reduced due to an increase in the number of operators entering into a "high risk" zone around the load unit 15. The controller 38 may, in response, prescribe a series of actions to the operator in order to increase the safety score at the mine site 12. The prescribed actions may not relate to the load unit 15 or the proximity of operators thereto at all. Rather, the controller 38 may determine that safety levels at the mine site 12 can best be improved by re-routing tip trucks 20 to stay out of the affected area. Alternatively, the controller 38 may determine that performing an overdue maintenance task on conveyor 22 represents the best use of safety resource - despite the possibility that the presence/absence of safety factors relating to the conveyor 22 may have remained unchanged for some time, and thus while contributing to reduced safety at the mine site 12, was not been the causative factor that triggered the alarm. In this manner, it is understood that safety and operational efficiency can be balanced, in order to maximize and/or priorities the impact that safety based activities have on the mine site and operator wellbeing.

A method 100 of using the system 10 on a mine site will now be described with reference to Figure 2. It is understood, however, that the method 100 may have application in other industries relating to other forms of working, and thus is not limited to mine sites or mining processes.

In a mining or processing step 110, material is mined using mining equipment and/or processed via plant equipment at the mine site.

In a monitoring step 120, safety events at the mine site 12 are monitored. The monitoring step may include recording incidence data in record 36. The recorded safety events may include, for example, operator injuries and/or breakdowns of plant equipment 14 at the mine site.

In an identifying step 130, safety factors that are active within the mine site 12 are identified. Such safety factors are taken to be parameters that may have a positive or negative impact on operator safety and wellbeing. It is understood that the safety factors need not be "new" per se. That is, the method 100 does not require the identification of new parameters or the subsequent measuring thereof. Rather, existing parameters and recorded variables that are already used at the mine site 12 may be used by the method 100. Such variables, may, for example, already be used as part of a wider fleet management system (FMS) or be used in the derivation of cost effectiveness or operational efficiency measures that are used at the mine site 12.

In a measuring step 140, a presence or absence of safety factors at the mine site 12 is measured. The measuring step may include reading data from the at least one detector 16 in the form of a sensorthat is mounted or otherwise associated with the plant/mining equipment 14. The measuring of the safety factors may be conducted in substantially "real time" - that is regularly polled at discrete intervals by detector or detectors 16.

In a correlating step 150, correlation between the presence of said safety factors and an incidence of safety events at the mine site 12 is determined. The correlating step 150 may include determining a coefficient or ratio that relates the presence or absence of a respective safety factor to the incidence or likely predicted incidence of a safety event at the mine site 12 with the controller 38.

In a classifying step 160, each of the safety factors is classified as a promotor of safety or a detractor of safety by the controller 38. A promotor of safety is understood to be a factor whose presence improves safety at the mine site 12 (that is to say, reduces the likelihood of a safety event occurring). It is understood, therefore, that a promotor of safety is a factor is one that is determined to have a negative correlation with the incidence or predicted incidence of a safety event at the mine site 12. On the other hand, a detractor of safety is understood to be a factor whose presence reduces safety at the mine site 12 (that is to say, increases the likelihood of a safety event occurring).

In a calculating step 170, a safety score for the mine site 12 is calculated and provided by the controller 38. The safety score provides a substantially "real time" representation of the actual level of operator safety at the given mine site 12. The safety score is calculated based on the presence of each ofthe safety factors at the mine site 12, and the associated correlations determined in the correlating step 150. In a prescribing step 180, actions associated with the operation of the plant equipment 14 that are required to maintain and/or improve safety at the mine site 12 are prescribed by the controller 38 and/or an associated indicator 40. The actions may be prescribed or otherwise communicated directly to the plant equipment 14, or indirectly, that is via an operator. For example, an operator may be prescribed a set of actions that relate to maintenance of a selected piece of plant equipment 14, with the actions setting out an order in which the maintenance activities for said equipment 14 should be undertaken to best maximize operator safety in the fastest time period possible - thereby optimizing the allocation of safety efforts/resources. By way of another example, an action may be prescribed directly to an on-board or local controller 42 of the plant equipment 14, with the equipment enacting the action autonomously.

EXAMPLE

The following passages set out a particular example of the mining method 100, in particular demonstrating a preferred way in which the correlating, calculating, and prescribing steps 150, 170, 180, respectively, may be implemented on a mine site 12 to determine a safety score 44 for said mine site 12. It is understood, however, that such implementation is provided by way of example only, and that other ways of implementing method 100 are also contemplated within the disclosure.

In the correlating step 150, correlations between the presence of safety factors and the incidence of safety events at the mine site 12 are determined using historical data. The historical data typically includes discrete data that have been recorded at set intervals during a given period of time. The intervals can be set by an operator, and for example, may be quarterly, monthly, weekly, or daily. If the interval is chosen to be daily, the safety score 44 can be calculated effectively in real time. Typically, the data includes recordings of the number of safety events and the safety factors present during each period. The safety factors may include, for example, a ratio of planned to unplanned work, number of equipment and/or facility shutdowns, fatigue breaches, asset (i.e. equipment) health and the like. The safety factors can then be classified as promoters or detractors in the classifying step 160.

Promoters 46 are safety factors that have a negative correlation with TRIFR. In other words, a promoter 46 is an interaction or activity that has a positive influence in reducing the potential of adverse incidents, events or injury escalation. Examples of promoters 46 that may be present on a mine site 12 and may be included in the data to determine the correlation include positive behaviours, removing or otherwise addressing behaviours identified as risky, effective critical control, proactive hazard reporting, and actioning planned shutdowns or closures on time.

Detractors 48 are safety factors that have a positive correlation with TRIFR. In other words, a detractor 48 is an interaction, activity or event that has a negative influence in reducing the potential for adverse incidents, events or injury escalation. Examples of detractors 48 that may be present on a mine site 12 and may be included in the data to determine the correlation include allowing maintenance or other actions to become overdue, field leadership with no control, ineffective critical control, workplace incidents, and high-risk activities including unplanned shutdowns and unplanned maintenance work.

Data relating to the presence of detractors 48 and promoters 46 can be obtained from audits, incidents, and hazards reported, for example, or directly via detectors 16 associated with machinery at the mine site 12. These provide more objective measures of promoters and detractors when compared to other commonly used methods such as surveys of workers' feelings or perceptions of safety on a mine site 12. Relying on the impressions of workers does not typically provide data relating to an increase or decrease in the number of safety incidents, nor does it provide information about which factors are positively or negatively contributing to the overall safety of the mine site 12.

With reference to Figures 3A - 3C, before calculating a safety score 44 for the mine site 12, the raw data are processed to calculate unique indices for all promoters 46 and detractors 48. The raw data are converted to frequency rates using the number of hours that each promoter and detractor was present during the recording period. The frequency rates are then scaled by dividing each promoter 46 and each detractor 48 by a target value. The target value may be determined from the upper quartile of all historical data for each promoter 46, and from the lower quartile of all historical data for each detractor 48. The scaled variables are then normalised to the same base by dividing by a normaliser variable. The normalised scaled variables are known as unique indices for promoters 46 and detractors 48 for each time period. The normaliser variable may be, for example, taken from the third quartile of all historical data for each promoter or detractor.

In particular, Figure 3B illustrates an exemplary method of calculating an index for a respective factor (“Factor 1”) at mine site 12. In this example, the occurrence of safety events (for example recorded injuries) at mine site 12 is charted against the incident rate or presence of a safety factor over various time periods. As can be seen in each of the time-based charts, there is a positive relationship between the incidence of Factor 1 (which may, for example, be a variable associated with overdue maintenance tasks) and the rate of safety events (for example, recorded injuries) at the mine site 12. The positive relationship between Factor 1 and the occurrence of safety events indicates that Factor 1 is a detractor 48. A regression analysis can then be used to determine a line of best fit for each of the time periods, with the strength or meaningfulness of the relationship assessed via a p-value regression model. The beta coefficient of the regression line having the highest correlation may then, in turn, serve as a coefficient associated with Factor 1 to calculate the safety score 44.

It is understood that, for each location or team where the safety score 44 is calculated (in this case mine site 12), several different factors together form the promoters 46 and detractors 48. In particular, as shown in Figure 3C, four such factors (Factor 1, Factor 2, Factor 3 and Factor 4) together form the net detractors 48 at the mine site 12. Each such factor may represent a cluster of sub-factors, which, in turn, may be broken down into discrete elements, with said elements being measured data values that are monitored at the mine site 12. In the example shown, it can be seen that Factor 2 is the highest contributing detractor 46 to safety events at the mine site 12.

In the calculating step 170, the safety score 44 for the mine site 12 is calculated by subtracting the unique index for the detractors 48 from the unique index for the promoters 46 for each time period. In this way, the evolution of the safety score 44 can be monitored or tracked over time . Monitoring the safety score 44 can identify areas in which individual operators, or the mine site as a whole, is falling behind. In these situations, the safety score can be used to determine when action is required to prevent adverse incidents, events or injuries. For example, a low safety score 44 might be caused by low levels of promoters and high levels of detractors. In this case, action would be taken to increase promoters 46 and decrease detractors 48 in order to mitigate the risk of a safety event. Analysis of historical incident data and recent trials by the applicant have demonstrated a strong inverse relationship between the safety score 44 determined by the method 100 and TRIFR on respective mine sites 12, supporting a view that the safety score 44 is an efficient way to measure the presence of safety at a mine site 12 by not looking at incidents themselves, per se, but by actively monitoring everything that correlates to incidents.

An example of this calculation is shown in the table of Figure 4, which is demonstrating the net or combined contribution of the promoters 46 and detractors 48 as a whole, in order to calculate the safety score 44. A trend of the safety score over several reporting periods is best shown in the graph accompanying the table.

In operation, the evolution or tracking overtime of the safety score 44 for a given mine site 12 can be displayed on the indicator 40, via a dashboard 50. An example of a dashboard 50 is shown in Figures 5 and 6. The dashboard 50 is accessible to operators on the mine site 12, as well as operators remote to the mine site, and may be displayed on a display screen, a personal computer, or a handheld device such as a mobile phone. Accordingly, it is understood that the indicator 40 in this example may be any one of the above or a terminal directly associated or forming part of the controller 38. The dashboard 50 can illustrate the variance of promoters and detractors with time and therefore assist an operator to identify at risk behaviours and corrective actions. The dashboard 50 may additionally, in the prescribing step 180, provide instructions or examples to an operator about how to improve safety on the mine site 12 - that is to say, actions 52 to improve the safety score 44. It is understood that the safety score 44 may also be provided at a more granular, team based level, whereby a respective mine site 12 is subdivided into different teams such, as for example, ore processing, mobile maintenance and mining operations teams.

In some embodiments, the dashboard 50 can be configured to provide an alert or warning when the safety score 44 has been trending down, or if there is a rapid increase in detractors 48, for example. Additionally, an alert or warning may be triggered if there has been a reduction in promoters 46. This may be the case if, for example, no hazards have been identified and rectified in a given period, or if positive actions have been below target. Figures 5 to 9 include example visual display screens that may be provided by the dashboard 50. It is understood that each Figure, as shown, has been created for example purposes only using dummy data.

With particular reference to Figure 5, a trend of the safety score 44 at the mine site 12 over time is displayed alongside trend lines which show a summation of the promoters 46 and detractors 48 at the mine site. The safety score 44 - referred to nominally in the Figure as a "Leading Safety Index" or "LSI" - can be seen as generally trending upwards.

The promoters 46 and detractors 48 are represented by Factors 1 through 16. Example factors may include: recorded number of equipment shutdowns, number of workplace inspections, reported incidence of unplanned work, identified hazards, asset health, fatigue, recorded injuries, behaviours, control monitoring and reported incidents. A second panel includes bar graphs that indicate a variance between each factor and a set target. It is understood that promoters 46 that are above the set target contribute positively to the safety score 44 whereas promoters 46’ that are below the set target contribute negatively to the safety score 44. Likewise, it is understood that detractors 48 that are below the set target contribute positively to the safety score 44 whereas detractors 48’ that are above the set target contribute negatively to the safety score 44. As shown, Factors 1 through 6 are contributing positively to the safety score 44 whereas factors 7 through 16 are contributing negatively to the safety score 44.

Suggested or prescribed actions 52 to address the factors 46’, 48’ that are negatively contributing to the safety score 44 are then shown in the panel immediately below the trend lines, for example activities which may work to reduce individual detractors 48 or to increase individual promoters 46. The suggested actions are prescribed in an order of impact on the safety score 44. Put differently, it is understood that the dashboard 50 not only identifies situations where there is a high risk at a respective mine site 12, but also outlines the determining factors 46, 48 contributing to the risk and prescribes possible solutions or recommended approaches to how the operator and/or their team should react to the risk. Example suggested actions or mitigations may include: a direction to focus on safety actions for improvements, a direction to focus on critical control monitoring, a direction to identify at risk behaviours, a direction to recognise positive behaviours, and a direction to reduce the incidence of workers working above maximum daily thresholds.

Turning to Figure 6, the operator is able to interrogate the comparative impact or weighting that is assigned to each of the detractors 48 and promoters 46 - i.e. the contribution that each of the factors is providing to the current or real time safety score 44. This information may be useful to the operator, as provides a quick, simple and visual means of seeing the comparative impact of each of the respective safety factors. As shown, Factors 1 to 9 vary positively with respect to the target level and contribute positively to the safety score 44 at the mine site 12, being either promoters 46 that are above target or detractors 48 that are below target. Factors 10 to 16, on the other hand, vary negatively with respect to the target level and contribute negatively to the safety score 44 at the mine site 12, being either promoters 46’ that are below target or detractors 48’ that are above target.

The Factors to the extreme left and right of the Figure represent those that are contributing the most to the safety score 44 - being those with the highest variance to the desired or target level. Such factors (which may be promoters such as recorded use of safety equipment that are below target level or, alternatively, detractors such as unplanned maintenance work which may be above target level) are those which should receive priority attention and represent the greatest opportunity for efficiently and effectively improving safety at the mine site.

Figures 7 to 9 represent alternative layouts and/or information screens that may be provided on the dashboard 50, providing granular data that allows an operator and or supervisor to track a live safety score 44 (and the determinants thereof) in real time. For example, Figure 7 provides a safety factor level comparison between different teams and/or mine sites, whereas Figures 8 and 9 chart safety performance at a respective mine site over time at a safety factor level.

Summarily, embodiments of the present invention provide a system and method of mining with improved safety. In particular, embodiments of the present invention outputting a safety store that is calculated based on the correlation between actual, measured parameters and recorded workplace incidents, and therefore provides a "real-time" snap-shot that reflects the level of safety of the work site. More specifically, preferred embodiments of the system and method described herein determines a correlation between both factors that increase safety at a workplace (i.e. "promoters") and those that pose an increased safety risk (i.e. "detractors") and the likelihood of a safety event at the workplace. It is understood that when compared to existing, reactive, methods of assessing or measuring safety at a mining site (such as, for example, TRIFR based policy making), the described method provides a substantially "real time" indication of actual or future mine site safety, as opposed to being a historical lagging indicator or one that is based on subjective impressions of operator safety. Furthermore, by prescribing actions to an operator and/or plant equipment that actively increase or maintain safety levels, the described method can be used as a means for optimising ensuring that safety resources are allocated in a manner that optimises operator safety.

While various embodiments of the present invention have been described above, it should be understood that they have been presented by way of example only, and not by way of limitation. The reference in this specification to any prior publication (or information derived from it), or to any matter which is known, is not, and should not be taken as an acknowledgment or admission or any form of suggestion that that prior publication (or information derived from it) or known mater forms part of the common general knowledge in the field of endeavor to which this specification relates.

Throughout this specification and the claims which follow, unless the context requires otherwise, the word ‘comprise’, and variations such as ‘comprises’ and ‘comprising’, will be understood to imply the inclusion of a stated integer or step or group of integers or steps but not the exclusion of any other integer or step or group of integers or steps.

LEGEND

Claims

1. A method, comprising: performing a process at a worksite; measuring a presence of safety factors at the worksite; determining a correlation between the presence of said safety factors and an incidence of safety events at the worksite; and using said correlation to prescribe actions associated with the process that are required to maintain and/or improve safety at the worksite.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the worksite is a mine site, with the process comprising mining and/or processing mined material with plant equipment.

3. The method of claim 1 or claim 2, comprising the step of identifying the safety factors at the worksite.

4. The method of any one of the preceding claims, comprising the step of classifying each safety factor as a promotor or detractor of safety at the worksite.

5. The method of any one of the preceding claims, comprising the step of monitoring the incidence of safety events at the worksite.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein the monitoring step includes recording operator injuries and/or equipment breakdowns on the worksite.

7. The method of any one of the preceding claims, comprising the step of providing a safety score for the worksite based on the measured safety factors and the associated correlation of said factors with the incidence of safety events.

8. The method of claim 7, wherein the safety score is updated in real time.

9. The method of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the measuring step includes reading data from a detector in the form of a sensor that is mounted to plant equipment on the worksite.

10. The method of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the correlation is determined by calculating a ratio between the presence of said safety factors and the incidence of said safety events with a controller.

11. The method of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the correlation is used to prescribe an order in which maintenance tasks should be undertaken on plant equipment.

12. The method of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the correlation is used to prescribe actions directly to plant equipment.

13. The method of claim 12, wherein the prescribed actions are performed autonomously by the plant equipment.

14. A method of mining, comprising: monitoring safety events at a mine site; measuring a presence of safety factors at the mine site; determining a correlation between the presence of said safety factors and an incidence of said safety events; and using said correlation to identify and prescribe to an operator actions that are required to maintain and/or improve safety at the mine site.

15. The method of any one of the preceding claims, comprising the step of warning the operator when a safety event is imminent.

16. A system, comprising: equipment adapted for performing a process at a worksite; at least one detector within the worksite that is adapted to detect a presence or absence of safety factors associated with the operation of the equipment; and a controller that is in communication with the detector, the controller being configured to determine a correlation between the presence of safety factors and an incidence of safety events at the worksite; wherein the controller uses said correlation to prescribe actions associated with operation of the equipment that are required to maintain and/or improve safety at the worksite.

17. The system of claim 16, wherein the worksite is a mine site, with the process comprising mining and/or processing mined material with plant equipment.

18. The system of claim 17, wherein the at least one detector includes a sensor that is mounted to plant equipment.

19. The system of any one of claims 16 to 18, wherein the controller is a central controller and the equipment includes at least one autonomous machine having a local controller, with the local controller being configured to receive a message from the central controller and perform an associated prescribed action autonomously.

20. The system of any one of claims 16 to 19, wherein the worksite is one of a plurality of worksites, with each worksite having: equipment adapted for performing a process; and at least one detector that is adapted to detect a presence or absence of safety factors associated with the operation of equipment at the respective worksite; wherein the controller is in communication with the at least one detector of each of the worksites such that the correlation is determined from the safety factor presence and incidence of safety events of each worksite combined.