Bow-tie analysis of a fatal underground coal mine collision

Background: Bow-tie analysis combines aspects of fault-tree analysis and event-tree analysis to identify an initiating event; its causes and consequences; and potential preventive and mitigating control measures or barriers. Aims: The aim of the research is to analyse a fatality which occurred in a Queensland underground coal mine in 2007 to illustrate this technique. Method: The case study concerns a fatality which occurred at an underground coal mine in Queensland in 2007. Results: A continuous mining machine operator was crushed against the mine wall by a shuttle car following a loss of situation awareness by the shuttle car driver. The causes included the use of shuttle cars in close proximity to pedestrians, and driver inexperience. A directional control-response incompatibility contributed to the severity of the final consequence. A range of potential control measures are identified including: (i) replacing shuttle cars with a mobile conveyer; (ii) non-line-of-sight remote control of continuous miners; (iii) proximity detection interlocked with shuttle car controls; (iv) “always-compatible” shuttle car steering design. Conclusions: Proximity detection sensors interlocked with shuttle car control systems is a technically feasible control measure which should be implemented at all underground coal mines. Non-line-of-sight remote control of continuous mining machines or automation of continuous mining machines would remove operators from this hazard entirely. A bow-tie representation provides an effective way of systematically examining the causes, consequences, and potential preventive and mitigating control measures or barriers associated with a previous incident.

[1]  Philipp Kirsch,et al.  RISKGATE: PROMOTING AND REDEFINING BEST PRACTICE FOR RISK MANAGEMENT IN THE AUSTRALIAN COAL INDUSTRY , 2012 .

[2]  Cécile Fiévez,et al.  ARAMIS project: a more explicit demonstration of risk control through the use of bow-tie diagrams and the evaluation of safety barrier performance. , 2006, Journal of hazardous materials.

[3]  Robin Burgess-Limerick Avoiding collisions in underground mines , 2011 .

[4]  Christine Zupanc,et al.  Strategy affects compatibility: Evidence from a coal mine shuttle car simulator , 2008 .

[5]  Christine M. Zupanc,et al.  Performance Consequences of Alternating Directional Control-Response Compatibility: Evidence From a Coal Mine Shuttle Car Simulator , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[6]  Nijs Jan Duijm,et al.  Safety-barrier diagrams as a safety management tool , 2009, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[7]  Christine Zupanc,et al.  Effect of Age on Learning to Drive a Virtual Coal Mine Shuttle Car , 2011 .

[8]  F R Chevreau,et al.  Organizing learning processes on risks by using the bow-tie representation. , 2006, Journal of hazardous materials.

[9]  Steven Cloete,et al.  Control Order and Visuomotor Strategy Development for Joystick-Steered Underground Shuttle Cars , 2014, Hum. Factors.

[10]  Robin Burgess-Limerick,et al.  Directional control–response compatibility of joystick steered shuttle cars , 2012, Ergonomics.

[11]  Christine Zupanc,et al.  Effect of control order on steering a simulated underground coal shuttle car. , 2013, Applied ergonomics.

[12]  Christine Zupanc,et al.  Strategy influences directional control–response compatibility: evidence from an underground coal mine shuttle car simulation , 2015 .

[15]  Robin Pitblado,et al.  Barrier diagram (Bow Tie) quality issues for operating managers , 2014 .

[16]  W. H. Schiffbauer,et al.  Active proximity warning system for surface and underground mining applications , 2002 .