Coal Mine Road Network Surface Friction Report 2011 PDF

COAL MINE ROAD NETWORK SURFACE FRICTION
REPORT 2011
A Pilot Study of Friction Evaluation Methodology and

Operational Protocol for Unsealed Mine Road Networks
David Tulloch David Stocker BEng

Director Crash Analysis &
RoadSafety Training Services Pty Ltd Training Consultants
A Pilot Study of Friction Evaluation Methodology and Operational Protocol for unsealed Mine Road Networks
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................... 4
Report Limitations and Disclaimer ........................................................................................................................ 4
Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................ 5
1.0 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 Scope ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.0 Background of Technology Application ................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Methodology of Friction Supply Measure ........................................................................................... 7
3.0 Test Site Procedure ................................................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Test Result Adjustment Procedure ...................................................................................................... 9
4.0 Mine Site Benchmarking Protocol ............................................................................................................ 9
4.1 Test Site Location Recommendations .................................................................................................. 9
4.2 Water Application .............................................................................................................................. 10
4.2.1 Recommendation ........................................................................................................................... 10
4.3 Test vehicle Selection ......................................................................................................................... 11
4.3.1 Recommendation ........................................................................................................................... 12
4.4 Braking System Selection ................................................................................................................... 12
4.4.1 Recommendation ........................................................................................................................... 12
5.0 Mine Site Safety Friction Analysis .......................................................................................................... 12
5.1 Friction Supply .................................................................................................................................... 13
5.2 Friction Demand ................................................................................................................................. 14
6.0 Friction Supply Intervention Levels ........................................................................................................ 14
6.1 The Traffic Signal Model ..................................................................................................................... 15
6.1.1 Recommendation ........................................................................................................................... 15
6.2 Friction Analysis Table ........................................................................................................................ 16
7.0 Vehicle Friction Correction Factors ........................................................................................................ 17
8.0 Project Alpha Mine Test Results ............................................................................................................. 18
8.1 Alpha Mine (South East Queensland) ................................................................................................ 18
8.2 High Clay Content Site Results ........................................................................................................... 18
RoadSafety Training Services Pty Ltd Page 2

8.2.1 Composition Graph of Test Results ............................................................................................... 20
8.2.2 Braking Distance Graph at 35km/h ............................................................................................... 20
8.2.3 Imported Road Material Construction (High Performance) ......................................................... 21
8.3 Vehicle Type Evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 21
8.3.1 CAT 785C Rear Dumper Graph ....................................................................................................... 22
8.4 Alpha Mine; Discussion of results ...................................................................................................... 22
9.0 Project Bravo Mine Test Results ............................................................................................................. 23
9.1 Bravo Mine (Central Queensland) ..................................................................................................... 23
9.2 Bravo Mine Test Locations ................................................................................................................. 23
9.3 Bravo Mine Test Vehicles ................................................................................................................... 25
9.4 Test Result Graphs .............................................................................................................................. 25
9.4.1 Graph Road C (Dump Ramp) .......................................................................................................... 25
9.4.2 Graph Road E (Mudstone) ............................................................................................................. 26
9.4.3 Graph Road 17 (High Clay Content Surface) .................................................................................. 26
9.5 Vehicle Comparison Graph ................................................................................................................. 27
9.6 Road Comparison Graph .................................................................................................................... 27
9.6 Bravo Mine; Discussion of results ...................................................................................................... 28
10.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. 28
11.1 Appendix A – Factor of Safety Case Studies ...................................................................................... 30
11.2 Appendix B – Pilot Program Graphs ................................................................................................... 39
11.3 Appendix C – Miscellaneous .............................................................................................................. 59
11.4 Appendix D – References ................................................................................................................... 61

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The report authors would like to acknowledge the following organisations and persons who were instrumental
in assisting and supporting the pilot project objectives. On behalf of mine safety generally and more
specifically in the context of this report, road safety, their combined efforts are greatly appreciated.
1. The Queensland Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI)- Mines
Safety and Health; and in particular Graeme Smith Inspector of Mines – Central Region who was
largely responsible for the initiation of this project.
2. New Hope Coal (Jeebropilly Mine); Mine management and in particular Ian Gray, Bill Drysdale and the
mine vehicle operators for their patience and expertise.
3. Jellinbah Resources (Jellinbah East Mine); Mine management and in particular Mick Champion,
Robbie Bond and the mine vehicle operators who followed instructions to the letter.
REPORT LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMER

The report scope is further enunciated in section 1.1 and being a limited pilot trial there are avenues for
further progress and research into the processes explored within this report. The scope has focussed on
variability inputs that are known to have the most bearing on friction values. Some, but not all of the relevant
topics that may be subject of further research and development that are not within the scope of this report
include:
 Evaporation rates in terms of surface friction recovery related to time.

 Road material geotechnical composition.
 Road surface moisture content prior to test protocol other than to observe all test roads were dry
before the test procedure water application.
 Site specific wind velocity and ambient temperature although local weather station observations on
the test days are included in Appendix C.
 Tyre specific analysis where different tyre selections are used on the same vehicle.
 Laden trucks; anecdotal evidence indicates empty vehicles are subject to greater uncontrolled
movement risk.
Disclaimer:
This report is based on a limited pilot study and the report authors do not accept any liability for the risk
management procedures adopted at individual mine operations based on the contents or findings of this
report.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Uncontrolled vehicle movements, is a significant operational hazard in the mining environment exacerbated by
rain events and potential overwatered road surface conditions. The report outlines the results of an
innovative surface friction assessment pilot program conducted at two (2) functioning open cut coal mines in
Queensland.
1
The program involved conducting friction supply tests in controlled conditions to replicate a range of real
world mine operating conditions and vehicles. The project is adapted from a recently introduced procedure
used by the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads to measure road surface friction and has
been tailored for mine road network evaluation.
The trial has established that the technology and friction appraisal method is robust and enables a fast,
effective and scientifically sound methodology. The procedure allows mine personnel to objectively test road
network friction values to support their current subjective road network operational safety evaluations.
The results at Alpha Mine clearly displayed the critical nature of road surface friction supply variability to water
application rates, on a high clay content road surface environment. The friction coefficient after a single
2
regular water application run reduced on average by 40% in contrast with dry surface friction values.
3
Overwatered or light rainfall conditions resulted in measured friction reduction of up to ~65%; effectively
rendering the road networks for Alpha Mine hazardous for business as usual vehicle operation.
In contrast with Alpha Mine; the results at Bravo Mine featured slightly more variability due to different
imported road surface material. The imported crushed rock road surface material, in general, displayed less
sensitivity to increased water application rates. The single site tested that was constructed from in-situ ground
material with significant clay content, displayed high sensitivity to water application.
All the test sites provided outstanding friction supply in dry conditions with some performing to a standard
equivalent to that of sealed roads. Different vehicle types were tested on common sites to form a basis for
heavy vehicle proxy result ratios with light vehicles; eliminating any requirement to test using large vehicles.
Typical sealed road surfaces demonstrate a stable reduction of friction supply in a range of ~20-40% when wet,
with a small percentage reducing by as much as 50% although from a higher base level than unsealed roads.
The core findings of the Pilot Friction Assessment Program include:
The methodology utilised for the pilot program provides a benchmarking template for mine operators
to frame an enhanced uncontrolled vehicle movement risk management strategy.
The technology used was confirmed as sufficiently robust for measuring road network friction
coefficients in a mine environment.
The pilot identified the variability of watered or rain affected unsealed road friction supply. It
supports the need for an objective assessment procedure to provide greater confidence and
corroboration together with the current subjective judgement of safe operating conditions.
Road watering application practice is considered a critical risk management learning outcome from
the results of the pilot program.
1
Surface Friction coefficient available from the particular surface and vehicle type to enable safe vehicle control
2
400ml/m2 or 0.4mm rain as measured using the mine water truck under typical operating settings
3
800ml-1200ml/m2 or 0.8mm-1.2mm rainfall representing two and three consecutive normal watering runs respectively

1.0 PURPOSE
The intention of the pilot testing program is validation of the methodology and measuring technology for
friction supply evaluation, in real world mining conditions. It is also anticipated to provide an objective
engineering process to support safe operations of vehicle movements on mine road networks and to enable
compliance with the following sections of the Coal Mining Safety and Health Regulation 2001:
Section 128 Specification for design and construction of mine roads
(1) A surface mine’s safety and health management system must provide a specification for the design and
construction of mine roads to enable the safe movement of vehicles about the mine.
Section 129 Standard operating procedure
A surface mine must have a standard operating procedure for maintaining and watering mine roads, including
dealing with hazards caused by excessive watering of roads.
In addition and complimenting the regulations, the purpose is to provide a robust system in support of the
4
recommendations of Mine Safety Bulletins 94 and 99 issued in 2010 by the Queensland Mines Inspectorate
Safety and Health Department. Specifically, some of the relevant recommendations include:
 Mines’ Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for dealing with excessive watering of haul-roads
require urgent review.
 The material types used by mines for road construction, including on the road surface to provide for
frictional value, require urgent review.
 Introduce engineering controls in place of administrative controls to reduce or eliminate the

probability of judgemental error by the water truck operator.
1.1 SCOPE
The pilot program is limited to using the test instrument for unsealed road network friction supply analysis.
Two operating open cut coal mines were selected for the project:
1. Alpha Mine; is a high clay content road environment where no external road material is imported
onto the common operational road network. Two third party maintained sites on the mine lease with
an imported road surface material were tested for comparison. About 170 individual friction
measuring tests were conducted at Alpha Mine using 4 different vehicles at 15 locations including pit
ramps, intersections and curves.
2. Bravo Mine; encompasses various on-site material and imported road surface material including
treated haul road surfaces. Approximately 250 individual tests were conducted at Bravo Mine using 5
different vehicles on 7 different roads and ramps.
The scope of the project also examined braking systems and vehicle benchmark selection, in order to provide a
framework of friction evaluation consistency, supported by commonly available mine resources. The road
4
See Appendix D

network safety intervention levels are also canvassed although it is emphasised this is a pilot project and
cannot account for all mine specific situations.
The information contained within the report is valid only for the pilot mines road networks although other
mines may record comparable results using the same test protocol. It is recommended each individual mine
conduct a similar procedure on their respective road network to obtain benchmarking and operational data.
2.0 BACKGROUND OF TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION

Historically, systematic friction analysis of unsealed road networks has never been conducted for various
technical and logistical reasons. Unsealed roads are to a large extent user regulated, in terms of safe driver
behaviour, relative to friction supply.
The author of this report initiated the introduction of the technology firstly into the Queensland Police Service
and more recently into the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads. The technology has a
variety of applications for road safety auditing, crash investigation and friction supply analysis.
The strength of the technology is in what may be characterised as a compelling Lay Person comprehension. It
is an in-vehicle emergency stop empirical procedure; to test friction that is understood by a non-expert and
does not involve expensive or bulky equipment, intricate scientific algorithms or a technically complex process.
The technology application provides a number or a friction supply value to an otherwise subjective evaluation.
2.1 METHODOLOGY OF FRICTION SUPPLY MEASURE

The technology (Vericom VC4000DAQ Accelerometer) is essentially an instrumented accelerometer with
additional features including GPS tracking and additional data acquisition characteristics that can be selected
dependent on the test data or method mandated. The instrument measures tri-axial acceleration at up to
1000 hertz to provide a G Force dimensionless factor stated as a coefficient of friction value. This value is
5
usually less than one and a typical dry sealed road surface coefficient of friction is in the range (0.60-0.80).
Unsealed road surfaces have had virtually no systematic test regimes applied to them; knowledge of measured
real world friction values is very limited and therefore subject of suppositions in road design and safety.
6
Friction demand value factors are universally used in public and mine road design with particular importance
with regard to geometric standards, therefore the measured friction supply values using the stated
methodology are uniquely related and directly analogous to road design and safety standards.
For example a 10% grade pit ramp requires a surface friction value greater than (0.10g) for a vehicle to
maintain traction in a stationary position. If the vehicle was being driven down the ramp and moderate brake
application is applied ~0.15g; the surface friction necessary to accommodate this action without potential loss
of traction, is a minimum of 0.10 + 0.15g = (0.25g).
If a 4WD vehicle was driving up the 10% ramp with a modest acceleration factor of ~0.10g; to maintain
traction control, friction supply needs to be greater than 0.10 + 0.10g = (0.20g).
5
1 represents the acceleration of gravity 9.81m/s² or 1 ‘g’
6
See section 5.2 for definition

3.0 TEST SITE PROCEDURE

The pilot test procedure was conducted in a light vehicle at low speed (35km/h) in both conventional brake
application (wheel lock) and standard Antilock Brake System operation (ABS) with the identical vehicle.
The test runs were conducted at multiple selected locations at each mine to include variable surface types and
critical locations including Intersections, Ramps and horizontal curves. In practice, statistical integrity suggests
a minimum of 3 test runs for each category is recommended.
The test skid distances were adjusted to a 35km/h result to enable direct comparison. The test speed of
35km/h was chosen for several reasons with safety being the prime basis. This speed is also in alignment with
the operating speed of many large mine vehicles, the test speed used by government road authorities using
7
the same instrument and the State Standard for performance of braking systems .
Test runs were conducted at a higher speed range (60-70km/h) to see if speed sensitivity is an issue; no
apparent friction supply anomalies were observed although the scope of the project did not allow a full
evaluation of this topic.
Each test location was subject to a total of 12-16 ABS and conventional brake tests to replicate the range from
ideal through to overwatered or rain events conditions in the following categories:
 Dry surface
 400ml per square metre or 0.4mm rainfall water application (1 water cart run)
 800ml per square metre or 0.8mm rainfall water application (2 consecutive water cart runs)
 1200ml per square metre or 1.2mm rainfall water application (3 consecutive water cart runs)
Grade contributes to the acceleration and deceleration of a vehicle, hence a requirement to adjust to a level
surface result to remove that influence. A 5% negative slope result is adjusted by an addition of (0.05) and
vice versa with a positive slope road surface. The test results from this procedure were grade adjusted to
8
enable comparative surface friction evaluation for each site and graphically presented on a straight line graph.
Figure 1 Test instrument setup in vehicle at Bravo Mine.
7 Appendix D No.4
8
Test runs with common parameters averaged.

3.1 TEST RESULT ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURE

A downhill test on a 10% (0.10) pit ramp even at 35 km/h may be problematic in low friction conditions;
therefore the test can be conducted uphill and accurately adjusted for a downhill or level surface result using
the following procedure:
Figure 2 Friction result grade correction procedure for a 6% grade.
4.0 MINE SITE BENCHMARKING PROTOCOL

To benchmark or provide a yardstick road surface coefficient of friction comparison; it is necessary to use
protocol to limit or control the variables involved in the procedure. The most critical feature is water
application so it should be measured; other significant elements are the vehicle type and brake application
mode.
The following procedures expanded on in sections 4.1 through 4.4 is recommended methodology that may be
used as a benchmarking framework in an operational mine environment. Tyre inflation pressures, hardness
readings and general weather conditions during testing are recorded in Appendix C. It is assumed all vehicles
were mechanically sound and subject to the usual pre start checks.
4.1 TEST SITE LOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Select key sites to test that may be categorised as follows:
Exhibiting characteristics that include:
 Horizontal curves particularly small radius or those with adverse cross fall or substandard super
elevation;
 Vertical curve (crest) alignment locations particularly where minimum line of sight standards may be
compromised.
 Vehicle conflict points, for instance intersections in particular where challenging geometric
characteristics are also present.
 Ramp roads particularly those up the upper limit of gradient specifications.
 Locations where uncontrolled vehicle movements have been previously reported are obvious
candidates for testing.
 To evaluate variations in road surface wearing course material for friction performance analysis.

Figure 3 Example of a key location at Alpha Mine.
4.2 WATER APPLICATION

It is essential to quantify road surface sensitivity to water application rates. The measuring protocol can be
conducted by replicating current watering practice in terms of nozzle sprays used, water truck speed and any
number of selected settings. Sophisticated watering systems may already facilitate water to ground area
application rates and negate the need to manually quantify.
The simple process used as displayed in figure 4 is to use 3 or 4 containers that are measured to calculate total
catchment area (corrected to a 1m² baseline) and then placed on the ground within the spray coverage. It is
recommended at least 4 runs; 2 in each direction are made, the water quantity measured and divided by the
number of runs to provide an averaged water application rate for each m² of road surface in a single pass.
Figure 4 Water application rate measuring at Bravo Mine.
Water application practice is considered a critical risk management learning outcome from the results of the
pilot program. The pilot highlighted the variability of different surface material to water quantity sensitivity.
4.2.1 RECOMMENDATION
 Conduct a water application measuring procedure and water cart operator awareness program.

4.3 TEST VEHICLE SELECTION

A 4WD or typical light vehicle commonly used on all mine sites is the recommended benchmarking test
vehicle. Different types of light vehicles are not considered a significant variable, however, the braking system
is along with some specialty tyres and this was highlighted in the results of the pilot program.
It is not practical or necessary to conduct regular operational friction testing with large mine vehicles,
therefore, a component of the project was to compare the friction disparity between a light benchmark
vehicle and large vehicles using the same road test site location. The rationale is to provide a friction ratio or
correction factor to correlate between a light vehicle test and a large vehicle result; without the requirement
to perform regular testing using a large vehicle.
The pilot trial scope was not intended to be definitive; as not all vehicle types were tested and the vehicle
comparison tests were only conducted on a limited number of road surfaces. Different road surfaces may
result in slight variations in the friction differential between different vehicle types. The pilot test method was
designed to provide the greatest friction differential over the range of vehicles being utilised at the mine i.e.
smallest and largest.
For example; if a light vehicle test result is (0.45) by multiply this value by an 80% (.8) large vehicle correction
factor or ratio the large vehicle friction value = (0.36). This simple calculation provides a vehicle disparity
friction supply range for the particular location.
Figure 5 All Test vehicles.

 Apply a correction ratio as determined from mine vehicle comparison testing, to ascertain the friction
supply difference between the benchmark light vehicle test results and large vehicle friction supply.
4.4 BRAKING SYSTEM SELECTION

Throughout the pilot program friction testing was conducted with conventional braking (wheel lock) and Anti-
Lock Braking Systems (ABS) on the same test vehicles at the identical locations to lessen vehicle specific
variation. This procedure also provided insight into brake system performance in terms of stopping capacity
and stability. The addition of water produced in most cases an expected downward trend in friction supply,
although, the occasional outlier results occurred particularly when using conventional wheel lock braking.
The ABS test method has the advantage of maintaining vehicle directional control and stability, however, the
test program results revealed that after water application, friction supply values were nearly always lower
than the tests conducted in conventional brake mode. It was observed that the test result anomalies occurred
when using conventional braking (non-ABS) and the tyres broke through the wearing surface causing a plough
effect. This is considered an invalid friction supply test and was a consideration for the recommendation of
brake system selection.
It is considered desirable, from a friction supply safety analysis that the lower value is used and this is provided
using the ABS mode. Modern vehicles with ABS and electronic stability control (ESC) features also provide
lateral and directional stability during the test procedure which is an important safety consideration. Non ABS
testing sometimes resulted in vehicle rotation most pronounced on low friction surfaces with cross fall or
super elevation present and although mitigated by low speed, may still be potentially problematic.
The anomaly between the different brake application mode friction coefficients is contrary to typical results
that occur on sealed road surfaces, where ABS friction values typically outperform conventional brake
applications by ~10-20%.
 Utilise a light 4WD or AWD vehicle fitted with ABS brakes to conduct benchmark friction supply
analysis.
5.0 MINE SITE SAFETY FRICTION ANALYSIS

The term slippery surface is well understood in a general sense, as a warning of a potential lack of friction to
safely control a vehicle if caution is not practiced. Friction supply is a combination of vehicle characteristics
and road surface conditions and is consequently driver independent. Friction demand, however, is
fundamentally defined by a combination of active driver behaviour and prevailing road geometry.
Mine road networks should, as with all vehicle transport design standards, take into account as many of the
variables as possible. Friction demand magnitude is controlled by road geometric design standards such as
curve radii, super elevation and grade. The operator input component is influenced by individual behaviour
which includes operating speed choice and vehicle control decisions.
Simply put; to conduct a friction safety analysis we need to compare friction supply with friction demand. If
friction demand exceeds friction supply, a loss of vehicle traction is the potential net result.

5.1 FRICTION SUPPLY

Simplicity is a key objective for operational practicality and data usefulness; for that purpose the variability of
dynamic friction values has through the technology and methodology expanded on in this report, been
condensed to an average dimensionless factor dependent on vehicle type, brake modes and road surface
conditions, primarily water application quantity.
To put it in context; friction supply factors greater than (1) are uncommon on public roads with regular
vehicles. A dry sealed road surface may fall in a range between (0.5 – 1) or be as low as (0.10) on ice affected
roads. Water affected sealed roads will rarely drop below (0.30) and may be as high as (0.80) on some
surfaces specifically designed to provide high friction performance.
The determination with regards to appropriate or safe levels of friction supply on mine road networks is to
some extent dependent on the friction demand or in other words location specific. As previously stated
unsealed road friction is virtually untested, therefore, very limited standards exist with which to use as a
reference or guide and they are at best vague on the subject.
The road design references have a discussion in terms of friction demand standards rather than friction supply
values. As previously discussed the methodology and technology used for this study means these values are
interchangeable or directly analogous.
9
The Guidelines for Mine Haul Road Design indicates (0.20) is a minimum lateral requirement. “In general, a
20% lateral coefficient of traction is safe for all but slippery conditions.”
10
The Queensland Road Planning and Design Manual (Chapter 11 Horizontal Alignment) advises using a
desirable maximum of (0.21) side friction demand for trucks on a sealed surface at 50km/h.
The same manual has a table for unsealed roads with a maximum side friction demand value of (0.12) at
50km/h. The probable rationale is that sealed surfaces are friction tested and there is a higher confidence
level in that value. Unsealed roads are not friction tested and are assumed to be more variable therefore a
lower number is used to account for the uncertainty.
If unsealed road surfaces are tested in a methodical manner and friction supply values are known with high
confidence, there appears no reason why these side friction values should not fall more into line with public
road design and mine road design orthodoxy.
The minimum friction supply value of (0.25) selected as a result of this pilot study accommodates the side
friction factors, which from a vehicle control safety aspect is critical, for both public and mine road design
standards.
Longitudinal or braking friction supply is closely aligned with stopping sight distance friction demand as a
safety priority. Chapter 9 of the Queensland Road Planning and Design Manual has a design specification of
(0.29) for truck coefficient of longitudinal deceleration. This value is also consistent with the minimum
11
requirement of braking efficiency for commercial heavy vehicles as required by state legislation.
The (0.29) factor applies to sealed road surfaces and for heavy vehicles travelling on public roads. The
minimum value (0.25) recommended in this report is considered a practical and reasonable unsealed road
compromise, with the better performed sealed public road surface standards.
9
See References Appendix D
10
See references Appendix D
11
Transport Operations (Road Use management-Vehicle Standards and Safety) Regulation 2010

12
Based on the afore mentioned information, the report authors experience and the pilot program data the
traffic signal model detailed in figure 8 represents broad based friction supply traffic management levels
considered sufficient to accommodate the management of safe mine road network operations.
5.2 FRICTION DEMAND

Friction demand is a permutation of longitudinal acceleration or deceleration and lateral acceleration. When a
vehicle travels around a curve it is subject to a certain lateral acceleration force that increases or decreases
with a change in speed and is also influenced by the radius and super elevation.
Alteration in speed requires either acceleration or braking input from the driver and a change in direction
13
requires steering input. The combination or vector sum of the driver inputs together with speed and road
geometry influence is defined as friction demand. This dimensionless factor is directly comparable with the
friction supply coefficient.
Driving behaviour revolves around, among other road features, so called comfort factors that are a function of
tri-axial acceleration forces acting on a person’s body. In order to grasp this concept; a normalised car
acceleration factor from a stationary position is ~0.15 and an average braking factor slowing to a non-urgent
stop is a similar value. Most drivers are comfortable with a maximum of ~0.30 lateral acceleration factor in a
small radii low speed curve. People are not generally comfortable with that level of lateral acceleration forces
at higher speeds of 80km/h with a comfort acceptance of about half that magnitude.
On a straight section of road there may only be a friction demand requirement for the acceleration or
deceleration factor, however, in a curve or during a steering manoeuvre there may be a need to also brake and
this induces bi-directional or vector sum friction demand. The friction demand values can be solved
mathematically or by in-vehicle simulation using the same instrument that measures friction supply.
6.0 FRICTION SUPPLY INTERVENTION LEVELS

Setting individual mine road network safety guidelines and intervention levels is not the intention of this pilot
study, however, it is a topic expected to be raised considering the content of the report and is included for the
purpose of wider industry consideration.
Friction supply guidelines developed by the author of this report and currently used by Queensland Road
Authorities for accelerometer measured friction supply sufficiency analysis on sealed public roads is depicted
in Figure 6.
A benchmark grade corrected friction result above 0.35 in a mining environment should, in general, provide
adequate safeguard against uncontrolled vehicle movements in the majority of situations where regular
vehicle operator behaviour is observed. This would allow unrestricted or business as usual vehicle movement
within the majority of mine road networks.
12
The Director RoadSafety Training Services is a member of the State Road Authority Skid Resistance Advisory Committee and person
responsible for the development and creation of figures 6, 7 & 8
13
See figure 8

Figure 6 Public Road Authority Guidelines (Queensland Main Roads)
If active testing results in friction values falling in a 0.25-0.35 range; it may be prudent to provide some form of
caution message to selected vehicle type and/or mine location specific movements. Targeted speed limit
reduction may provide an option for managing potential uncontrolled vehicle movements.
Friction values under 0.25 may call for selected limitations or even blanket restrictions on vehicle and/or
location specific vehicle activities. Critical locations may include ramps particularly those at the upper range of
gradient specifications, vehicle conflict points and geometrically demanding road layouts.
6.1 THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODEL

The traffic light management model has been developed by the report authors to facilitate, further develop
and promote safer mine road network traffic management protocol. The model represents friction value risk
categories only; it is a virtual model, operational implementation activities is a matter for individual mine
operators.
≥0.35 Unrestricted 0.25-0.35 Caution ≤0.25 Hazardous

Movement Required Restrictions Apply
Figure 7 Friction Supply Traffic Management Model©.
 It is recommended that the mine traffic management plan incorporates friction supply analysis
procedures and vehicle movement specifications in order to address and mitigate the risk of
uncontrolled vehicle movements.

6.2 FRICTION ANALYSIS TABLE

The purpose of a road surface friction analysis is to identify a factor of safety (FOS). The FOS is simply the
margin between friction supply and friction demand. For example, if a vehicle approaches a stop sign and the
driver reaches a braking peak value of 0.25 and the measured friction supply is 0.50 there is a large safety
margin and vehicle control is not compromised.
If the surface is wet and the friction supply reduces to 0.30 that same driving behaviour will provide only a 0.05
margin for error and the driver is unaware, other than through experience, how much the friction supply has
reduced. The vehicle cannot slow down at a greater rate than the available friction supply factor will allow,
conversely, a simultaneous steering action is limited as most of the available friction is being used to slow the
vehicle, hence, there is little friction supply remaining to provide effective steering control.
The safety issue identified is that the driver is unable to accurately measure the available friction as this is a
subjective assessment based on experience in similar conditions with a similar vehicle. This learned driving
behaviour provides the basis for setting friction supply values that provide a safety margin between known
driver comfort levels which may be defined loosely as normalised driver behaviour.
To establish a reliable and consistent examination of what can be a somewhat complex concept, a table has
been developed by the report authors as a tool to enable and simplify mine road site friction supply and
demand analysis.
The table as illustrated in Figure 8 below was developed specifically in support of this pilot program for the
purpose of assisting mine operators improve road surface friction analysis practices.
Several case study examples of how to use the table depicted in figure 8 are contained in Appendix A.
Site Specific Friction Analysis Table
Figure 8 Friction Supply – v – Demand Factor of Safety Analysis Table©.

7.0 VEHICLE FRICTION CORRECTION FACTORS

An important aim of the pilot study was to develop a procedure enabling a benchmark or light vehicle test
friction result to be utilised in lieu of an actual large vehicle test. The correction factor or ratio was achieved
by conducting direct comparison testing on the same road section with the results illustrated in figure 9 & 10.
Vehicle Correction Factors

Correction
Friction Supply Friction Supply
Water Mine Factor
Application Location Benchmark
Rear Dumper (Ratio)
Vehicle
Caterpillar 785C Jeep Cherokee
Alpha 0.64
0.389 0.604
Caterpillar 793C Toyota Prado
0.0mm Bravo 0.96
0.489 0.511
Terex 3700* Toyota Prado
Bravo 0.77
0.392 0.511
Alpha 0.83
0.323 0.391
0.4mm Bravo 0.83
0.358 0.434
Bravo 0.76
0.327 0.434
Alpha 0.60
0.121 0.203
0.8mm Bravo 0.62
0.253 0.411
Bravo 0.48
0.199 0.411
Alpha N/A
No Data 0.176
1.2mm Bravo 0.42
0.164 0.390
Bravo 0.49
0.190 0.390
*Note: Friction supply testing in the Terex 3700 was conducted using only the vehicle
retarder with no front wheel braking. The test results have been adjusted to allow for full
front wheel braking based on a 46.4% front to 53.6% rear axle mass ratio.
Figure 9 Benchmark vehicles to large vehicle friction supply correction factors
The variation in dry surface test results can be proportionally attributed to the mechanical braking efficiency of
the large vehicles. Due to the high friction supply provided by a dry surface, the front wheel braking systems
on the Caterpillar trucks were unable to generate sufficient brake force to lock the front wheels. Suffice to say
that dry surface friction on all of the surfaces tested was more than adequate for safe, business as usual
vehicle operations.
Limited testing conducted at both pilot mines where there was a variation in road surface material and test
vehicles produced almost identical correction factors for the Caterpillar trucks of approximately 80% at 0.4mm
water application and 60% at 0.8mm water application. This data indicates that further vehicle comparison
testing is warranted to evaluate potential generic correction factors for those critical water applications rates.

Rear Dumper to Benchmark Vehicle Comparison
100%
95%
90% 96%
Friction Supply Ratio (Correction Factor)
85%
83%
80% 77%
75%
70% 76%
65%
60% 64% 62%
55% 60%
50% 49%
45% 48%
40% 42%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Water Application (mm/m^2)
793C NonABS/Prado ABS 785C NonABS/Jeep ABS Terex 3700 Retarder Adj/Prado ABS
Figure 10 Chart display of figure 9 Table
8.0 PROJECT ALPHA MINE TEST RESULTS

The pilot project involved two operational open cut coal mines; the first of the mines tested is producing
thermal coal in southeast Queensland. The project mines were selected to represent a variety of road
networks with particular emphasis on different road material construction. The scope of the project did not
entail detailed physical road construction material analysis.
8.1 ALPHA MINE (SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND)

Alpha mine is a small operation with high clay content road construction material. Imported road construction
material is not used so the majority of test locations were similar surface material type, although, there were
subtle differences in mix and compaction.
A series of tests were conducted at selected locations including 4 intersections, 2 ramps and a curve road
section. A third party road network bisecting the lease was also tested against on-site material at 2 locations,
to compare with the significant disparity of the imported road material referred locally as a black Ipswich coal
stone chidders mix.
8.2 HIGH CLAY CONTENT SITE RESULTS

14
The friction supply test results have been grade corrected and collated into specific road surface water
application and vehicle parameters. The benchmark vehicle for this series of test in ABS and conventional
brake mode was a 2009 model Jeep Cherokee.
14
See appendix B for individual site results

Photographs depict the typical road surface material before and after wetting (right) at Alpha Mine.
Figure 11 Curve, intersection and ramp test site locations at Alpha Mine.
Alpha Mine - Benchmark Vehicle Site Composite
0.65
0.60
Coefficient of Friction (Level Surface)
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Site B Site C Site D Site E Site F Site G
Figure 12 Note limited data collected at 0.8mm water application.

8.2.1 COMPOSITION GRAPH OF TEST RESULTS

Figure 13 displays all the common site surface characteristics benchmark vehicle test results averaged. It also
incorporates the Traffic Signal Model aligned to the preferred ABS (Anti-lock Braking System) method.
The 0.4mm water application rate represents a regular water cart pass so the Alpha Mine road network
friction performance could be described as water sensitive. Overwatering or light rainfall represents a
potential significant hazard in terms of uncontrolled vehicle movement.
Alpha Mine - Benchmark Vehicle Traffic Signal Model
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

ABS Avg NonABS Avg ABS Max ABS Min NonABS Max NonABS Min
Figure 13 Composite graph of benchmark friction supply - v - water application rate
8.2.2 BRAKING DISTANCE GRAPH AT 35KM/H

The following graph represents the average braking distance of the benchmark vehicle for all the tests
completed comparing ABS and non-ABS braking performance. On a dry surface performance differential is
negligible; however significant divergence is displayed as the water application rate increases. This
emphasises the importance of using an ABS testing procedure since this method delivers longer stopping
distance requirements than conventional brake mode.
Alpha Mine - Benchmark Vehicle Braking Distance

27.5
25.0
22.5
Average Braking Distance (m)
20.0
@ 35km/hr Level Surface
17.5
15.0
12.5
10.0
7.5
5.0
2.5
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
ABS Average NonABS Average
Figure 14 Composite graph of braking distance at 35km/h - v - water application rate

8.2.3 IMPORTED ROAD MATERIAL CONSTRUCTION (HIGH PERFORMANCE )

rd
The 3 party haul road bisecting the lease was tested for comparison and displayed a stable friction value after
initial friction decrease similar to other surfaces for the 0.4mm application of water.
Figure 15 Composite graph & photograph of imported road material on third party road at Alpha Mine.
8.3 VEHICLE TYPE EVALUATION

Dissimilar vehicles were tested on similar road sections under the same water application regime to establish
vehicle specific sensitivity. The purpose of this evaluation was to provide a vehicle type ratio and friction
supply vehicle specific range. This enables a benchmark or standard vehicle type to be used for logistically
friendly and safe test procedures.
The non-ABS or conventional brake tests consistently produce higher friction results particularly after only a
single regular water pass (0.4mm) due to the plough effect which proportionally reduced as more water was
applied. The smaller older CAT 773 rear dumper (yellow line) did not obtain front wheel lock at any stage
therefore does not represent a pure surface friction evaluation. The larger CAT 785C (light blue line) did
obtain front wheel lock on all except the dry test runs and hence is a true vehicle surface friction evaluation.
Alpha Mine - Vehicle Comparison
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Jeep NonABS Avg Triton NonABS Avg 773 NonABS Avg 785C NonABS Avg Jeep ABS Avg Triton ABS Avg
Figure 16 Composite graph of vehicle type friction supply comparison on a common surface.

8.3.1 CAT 785C REAR DUMPER GRAPH

A site specific vehicle correction factor was calculated using the data displayed in figure 16 which is a
compilation of test results between the different vehicles on the same road site. This vehicle comparison
process provides the correction ratio data for the 785C-v-Benchmark (Jeep) comparison:
0.389/0.604 = 65% @ 0mm 0.323/0.391 = 83% @ 0.4mm 0.121/0.203 = 60% @ 0.8mm
The calculated correction factor (underlined above) was then applied to the composite average friction supply
for Alpha Mine using the data depicted in figure 13:
0.65 x 0.566 = 0.368 @ 0mm 0.83 x 0.339 = 0.281 @ 0.4mm 0.60 x 0.203 = 0.122 @ 0.8mm
Figure 17; depicts this process graphically, illustrating the overall performance of Alpha Mine road friction for
the Benchmark vehicle data (dark blue line) and the traffic signal model calculated for large vehicles in this
instance a CAT 785C. This procedure can be used for either site specific analysis or any combination of sites
dependent on the precision or extent of friction supply data required.
Alpha Mine - Cat 785C Traffic Signal Model
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Jeep ABS Average Cat 785C (Correction Factor)
Figure 17 Traffic signal model calculation for large vehicles based on Benchmark vehicle results.
The CAT785C testing was concluded at 0.8mm water application rate for safety reasons although projected
results are likely to align with the trend displayed by the benchmark vehicle in figure 17.
8.4 ALPHA MINE; DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The test results from Alpha Mine in general, displayed high water application sensitivity compared against
friction supply. This was a common anecdotal theme already well understood by mine personnel, although,
the correlation between specific water application rates and measured friction change was somewhat more of
a revelation.
A single water pass run of the water cart centre nozzle only, was sufficient to reduce friction supply by an
average of 40% and in some locations such as ramps this may adversely influence vehicle movement control,
particularly in relation to large vehicles.

The post watering time factor was also important in the sense that the first 5-10 minutes after a water run
pass are friction supply critical and influenced by the environmental conditions of sunshine intensity, wind
velocity and temperature. A tactical time period between normal watering runs and vehicle transition over
the surface significantly allays reduced friction supply issues on the Alpha Mine road material.
Water application procedures to manage potential overwatering practices, particularly at friction supply
critical locations, was a clear beneficial outcome of the pilot program. An observation at Alpha Mine was that
semi-permanent roads at friction critical sites may warrant consideration for some form of treatment or mix
with higher friction road material.
9.0 PROJECT BRAVO MINE TEST RESULTS

The second operational pilot project mine located in Central Queensland is producing low volatile PCI coal,
semi-soft coking coal and thermal coal product.
9.1 BRAVO MINE (CENTRAL QUEENSLAND)

Bravo Mine is a medium size operation with a variety of road construction material and characteristics.
Imported and treated road material is used extensively and road layout and construction formations provide
an enhanced safety element to control vehicle movement and interaction.
A series of tests were conducted at locations selected mainly to evaluate the different road wearing surfaces.
This included a test location where the clay soil material had been used for road construction and significantly
underperformed all other road construction material.
9.2 BRAVO MINE TEST LOCATIONS

The following series of photographs depict the variety of road surface material used to construct the road
network at Bravo Mine. Friction supply tests were conducted at all these locations to obtain benchmark
vehicle results.
Figure 18 Depicts D Road used for vehicle comparison testing.

C Road C Road (dump ramp)
A Road (seal treatment) E Road (Mudstone)
A Road (ramp) Road 17 (clay surface)

Figure 19 Amalgamation of test sites at Bravo Mine.

9.3 BRAVO MINE TEST VEHICLES

The benchmark vehicles used for this series of test in ABS and conventional brake mode were a 2010 model
Toyota Prado (ABS only), a 2008 model Toyota Prado (ABS & non-ABS modes) and a 2011 Toyota Landcruiser
troop carrier with conventional non-ABS brakes and off road mud tyres.
A Mercedes Mini-bus was also used for testing which provided excellent vehicle friction performance in
comparison to the benchmark vehicles.
The large vehicles tested were a Terex 3700 which was restricted to full retarder application to the rear drive
wheels only, to avoid possible brake system damage under full emergency stop. This limited the braking
capacity to approximately 50%, however, the adjusted results did corroborate those of the CAT 793C which
was tested using full mechanical braking.
9.4 TEST RESULT G RAPHS

A selected location of individual road results have been grade corrected to level surface equivalent values for
graphic display with the traffic signal model shading added for visual clarity of results. The full list of test
location graphs is available in Appendix B.
The benchmark vehicle for Figure 20 is a 2010 Toyota Prado using ABS brakes only. Figure 21 and 22
benchmark vehicle is a 2008 model Prado using ABS and non-ABS braking methods.
9.4.1 GRAPH ROAD C (DUMP RAMP)
Bravo Mine - Benchmark Vehicle (Road C Dump Ramp)
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
Coefficient of Friction
0.50
(Level Surface)
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

ABS Average ABS Minimum ABS Maximum
Figure 20

9.4.2 GRAPH ROAD E (MUDSTONE )

Bravo Mine - Benchmark Vehicle (Road E)
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
(Level Surface)
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

ABS Average NonABS Average ABS Minimum ABS Maximum
Figure 21
Road E friction supply may be classified as stable; displaying in Figure 21 a steady linear decline with increasing
water application rates. This is a desirable trait because of its predictability, at least within the test limit water
application maximum of 1.2mm.
9.4.3 GRAPH ROAD 17 (HIGH C LAY CONTENT SURFACE)

Bravo Mine - Benchmark Vehicle (Road 17)
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
(Level Surface)
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Figure 22
Road 17 was the only Bravo Mine road tested that was constructed of clay base in-situ material. Bravo mine
personnel were aware of its friction supply underperformance made to look worse in figure 22 due to an
exceptionally good performance when dry.
The friction supply shape of Road 17 is undesirable due to a sudden deterioration after only a single water pass
run at the (0.40mm) water application level. Overwatering represents a critical safety consideration for this
road when compared with other roads tested at Bravo Mine.

9.5 VEHICLE COMPARISON GRAPH
Bravo Mine - Vehicle Comparison (Road D)
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Prado NonABS Avg Mercedes NonABS Avg Terrex NonABS Avg 793C NonABS Avg
Prado ABS Avg Mercedes ABS Avg Troop Carrier NonABS Avg
Figure 23
Road D featured in figure 19 and graph display depicted in figure 23 was used for the vehicle comparison
benchmarking. The troop carrier high result is due to it being non-ABS with mud tyres. Road D displayed
excellent overall performance providing desirable traits of friction reduction stability and high friction
coefficient numbers.
Note: The Terex and Cat 793C rear dumper results are not a direct comparison as the Terex is drive wheel
braking only or an approximate 50% braking capacity result. A full braking adjusted comparison aligns well
with the other large vehicles used in the pilot program see figure 10.
9.6 ROAD C OMPARISON G RAPH
Bravo Mine - Benchmark Vehicle Road Comparison
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Road A ABS Avg Road E ABS Avg Road 17 ABS Avg Road D ABS Avg Road C ABS Avg Road C Ramp ABS Avg
Figure 24 Depicts the roads tested at Bravo Mine benchmarked with the same vehicle.

9.6 BRAVO MINE; DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

15
Bravo Mine test results overall, displayed moderate and predictable water application sensitivity when
compared to friction supply values. The mix of different road surface construction material adds to the task of
measuring friction to water sensitivity. This also potentially increases the assignment of managing safe vehicle
movements on the road network, although in the case of Bravo Mine results, most surfaces displayed
relatively consistent trends and friction supply values within the test parameters.
A single water pass run of the water cart applying ~0.40mm of water; reduced friction supply by an average of
25%, still in the green zone of the traffic signal model unlike the results at Alpha Mine. This friction supply
percentage reduction is consistent with sealed road results under a similar water application rate.
Road 17 was specifically requested by Bravo Mine management for analysis as there was a general
understanding the clay material utilised for road construction was friction sensitive to water application. It
proved to be an accurate forecast as this surface significantly underperformed all other tested surfaces. A
single water pass (0.4mm) reduced friction supply by 65% and 80% after 1.2mm water application which was
16
greater than what was observed on the high clay content road surfaces at Alpha Mine .
An observation at Bravo Mine was that although there were a relatively wide variety of road surface wearing
courses; friction supply results within the road network are relatively stable with a reasonably predictable
friction reduction measured within the limits of the testing protocol.
10.0 CONCLUSIONS
The pilot program has conclusively demonstrated that unsealed road surfaces can be subjected to an
effective and robust friction measuring protocol that validates the original purpose of the project.
The operational hazard of uncontrolled vehicle movements on unsealed mine road networks can be
significantly reduced; the report outlines the process by which the risk can be objectively measured
and managed.
The procedure enhances mine road network safety by providing a framework for benchmarking road
surface friction response to water application operations at mine sites.
The program highlights the importance of controlled watering procedures particularly on water
sensitive road surfaces and friction supply critical locations.
The friction data measuring methodology outlined in the report enables clear identification of inferior
sections of a mine road network, facilitating a focussed approach for road infrastructure safety and
resource allocation for road construction improvements.
This innovative friction analysis protocol has the potential to positively influence and advance mine
road network safety, design and development into the future.
Further test research is recommended to develop a greater understanding of the factors that
influence friction supply that were outside the scope of this report
15
See Appendix B for all test graph results
16
See Appendix B Page 55

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

11.1 APPENDIX A – FACTOR OF SAFETY CASE STUDIES

In order to showcase how to use the methodology a series of case studies have been completed based on test
data of selected sites from the pilot mines. The Traffic Signal Model is a general total mine coverage road
performance assessment tool. The Assessment Table may be used for a critical site specific analysis.
Case Study 1
Alpha Mine - Benchmark Vehicle Site D
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
ABS Average
Figure 25 Alpha Mine Intersection Site D
The benchmark vehicle result is in the green at (0.39) after a regular watering pass (0.4mm) with a large Factor
of Safety margin of 2.15 as displayed in figure 26.
0.39 2.15
Figure 26 Alpha Mine Intersection Site D Friction Assessment Benchmark Vehicle (Regular Watering@0.4mm)

The analysis on the benchmark vehicle using an over watered scenario of 0.8mm. Figure 27 shows the result
falling into the red zone of the model at (0.21) with a corresponding small safety margin less than the desired
minimum calculated as 1.15, which still represents greater friction supply than total demand but provides little
room for driver error or increased friction demand.
0.21 1.15
Figure 27 Alpha Mine Intersection Site D Friction Assessment Benchmark Vehicle (Over Watering@0.8mm)
100%
95%
90%
85%
80% 83%
75%
70%
65%
60% 64%
55% 60%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
785C NonABS/Jeep ABS
Figure 28

0.32 1.75
Figure 29 Alpha Mine Intersection Site D Friction Assessment CAT 785C (Regular Watering@0.4mm)
The large vehicle result in figure 29 shows the friction supply of 0.32 corrected by the 83% figure 28 ratio in the
middle of the amber zone for a regular watering pass but still with ample safety margin above the desirable
minimum at (1.75).
The overwatered scenario displayed in figure 30 shows the friction supply corrected by a 60% Figure 28 factor
for the large vehicle dipping deeply into the red zone at a (0.13) result and the corresponding factor of safety
being less than one (1). A factor of safety less than 1 means the potential friction demand under a normalised
driving situation is greater than friction supply and loss of traction is at high risk status.
0.13 0.70
Figure 30 Alpha Mine Intersection Site D Friction Assessment CAT 785C (Over Watering@0.8mm)

Case Study 2
Alpha Mine - Benchmark Vehicle Site C
0.65

0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
ABS Average
Figure 31 Alpha Mine Curve Site C (140m radius 4% super elevation)
Loss of traction on curves presents a significant hazard because of the propensity to rollover due to vehicle
oversteering dynamics. Side impacts also increase the risk of occupant injury; to counter this risk, which
increases with speed, the Factor of Safety Table has incorporate speed adjusted lateral friction demand values.
The benchmark vehicle result is in the amber zone at (0.28) after a regular watering pass (0.4mm) with a
moderate Factor of Safety margin of 1.55 as displayed in figure 32.
0.28 0.16 0.18 1.55
Figure 32 Alpha Mine Curve Site C Friction Assessment Benchmark Vehicle (Regular Watering@0.4mm)

marginally into the red zone of the model at (0.24) with a corresponding safety margin slightly under the
desired minimum calculated at 1.35 which still represents greater friction supply than total demand.
The 1.2mm critical friction deficient scenario at (0.19) friction supply provides an unsafe 1.05 safety margin.
0.24 0.16 0.18 1.35
Figure 33 Alpha Mine Curve Site C Friction Assessment Benchmark Vehicle (Over Watering@0.8mm)
The CAT 785C benchmark testing provided an 83% correction factor at the corresponding water application
rate which provides a (0.23) marginally into the red zone friction supply value for the large vehicle. This
situation is different from the benchmark vehicle in that the maximum operating speed of the large vehicle is
significantly lower with a correspondingly large drop in the lateral friction value. The assessment table
calculates a safe 2.10 factor of safety margin despite the low friction supply displayed in figure 34.
0.23 0.04 0.11 2.10
Figure 34 Alpha Mine Curve Site C Friction Assessment CAT 785C (Regular Watering@0.4mm)

The overwatered scenario shows the friction supply corrected by a 60% factor (figure 28) for the large vehicle
dipping deeply into the red zone at a (0.14) result although the corresponding factor of safety is satisfactory.
This case study is designed to show how disparity of vehicle types and specific locations can produce anomaly
results. That is not to say a friction result as low as this is safe as assessment at other locations will certainly
reveal it is not and therefore deserves the red zone traffic signal category.
0.14 0.04 0.11 1.25
Figure 35 Alpha Mine Curve Site C Friction Assessment CAT 785C (Over Watering@0.8mm)

Case Study 3
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
(Level Surface)
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Figure 36 Bravo Mine Road C Dump Ramp
100%
95%
90% 96%
85%
80% 83%
75%
70%
65%
62%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40% 42%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
793C NonABS/Prado ABS
Figure 37
0.55 2.50
Figure 38 Bravo Mine Road C Dump Ramp Friction Assessment Benchmark Vehicle (Regular Watering@0.4mm)

The benchmark vehicle result is in the green zone at (0.55) after a regular watering pass (0.4mm) with a high
Factor of Safety margin of 2.50 as displayed in figure 38.
moving into the amber zone of the model at (0.32) with an adequate safety margin calculated at (1.45).
0.32 1.45
Figure 39 Bravo Mine Road C Dump Ramp Friction Assessment Benchmark Vehicle (Over Watering@0.8mm)
The 1.2mm scenario at (0.25) friction supply provides a minimum 1.15 safety margin displayed in figure 40.
0.25 1.15
Figure 40 Bravo Mine Road C Dump Ramp Friction Assessment Benchmark Vehicle (Over Watering@1.2mm)

The CAT 793C benchmark testing provided an 83% correction factor at the corresponding regular water
application rate which provides a (0.45) friction supply and a high margin of safety value (2.0) for the large
vehicle. This situation displayed in figure 41 indicates regular watering does not pose a friction deficiency issue
at this site.
0.45 2.0
Figure 41 Bravo Mine Road C Dump Ramp Friction Assessment CAT 793C (Regular Watering@0.4mm)
The overwatered scenario at 0.8mm shows the friction supply corrected by a 62% factor obtained from figure
37 for the large vehicle, dipping into the red zone with a (0.20) result and an unsatisfactory 0.90 factor of
safety displayed in figure 42. This site is sensitive to over watering for large vehicles as is likely to be a general
theme for ramp locations in excess of 5% grade.
0.20 0.90
Figure 42 Bravo Mine Road C Dump Ramp Friction Assessment CAT 793C (Over Watering@0.8mm)

11.2 APPENDIX B – PILOT PROGRAM GRAPHS
Alpha Mine - Benchmark Vehicle Site A
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Alpha Mine - Benchmark Vehicle Site A
11.00
10.00
Metres Braking Distance @
35km/hr (Level Surface)
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Alpha Mine - Benchmark Vehicle Site B
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Alpha Mine - Benchmark Vehicle Site B
26.00
24.00
22.00
20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
28.00
26.00
24.00
22.00
20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
30.00
28.00
26.00
24.00
22.00
20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Alpha Mine - Benchmark Vehicle Site E
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Alpha Mine - Benchmark Vehicle Site E
42.00
40.00
38.00
36.00
34.00
32.00
30.00
28.00
26.00
24.00
22.00
20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Alpha Mine - Benchmark Vehicle Site F
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Alpha Mine - Benchmark Vehicle Site F
30.00
28.00
26.00
24.00
22.00
20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Alpha Mine - Benchmark Vehicle Site G
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Alpha Mine - Benchmark Vehicle Site G
24.00
22.00
20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Alpha Mine - Benchmark Vehicle Site H
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Alpha Mine - Benchmark Vehicle Site H
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Alpha Mine - Benchmark Vehicle Site I
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Alpha Mine - Benchmark Vehicle Site I
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Alpha Mine - Benchmark Vehicle (Imported Road Material)
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Alpha Mine - Benchmark Vehicle Traffic Signal Model
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

ABS Avg NonABS Avg ABS Max ABS Min NonABS Max NonABS Min
Alpha Mine - Benchmark Vehicle Braking Distance

27.5
25.0
22.5
Average Braking Distance (m)
20.0
@ 35km/hr Level Surface
17.5
15.0
12.5
10.0
7.5
5.0
2.5
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Alpha Mine - Cat 785C Traffic Signal Model
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Jeep ABS Average Cat 785C (Correction Factor)
Alpha Mine - Benchmark Vehicle Site Composite
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Site B Site C Site D Site E Site F Site G
Alpha Mine - Jeep Cherokee
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Alpha Mine - Jeep Cherokee
30.00
28.00
26.00
24.00
22.00
20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Alpha Mine - Mitsubishi Triton
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Alpha Mine - Mitsubishi Triton
44.00
42.00
40.00
38.00
36.00
34.00
32.00
30.00
28.00
26.00
24.00
22.00
20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Alpha Mine - Cat 773
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
NonABS Average NonABS Minimum NonABS Maximum
Alpha Mine - Cat 773
32.00
30.00
28.00
26.00
24.00
22.00
20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
NonABS Average
Alpha Mine - Cat 785C
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Alpha Mine - Cat 785C
48.00
46.00
44.00
42.00
40.00
38.00
36.00
34.00
32.00
30.00
28.00
26.00
24.00
22.00
20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
NonABS Average
Alpha Mine - Vehicle Comparison
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Jeep NonABS Avg Triton NonABS Avg 773 NonABS Avg 785C NonABS Avg Jeep ABS Avg Triton ABS Avg
Bravo Mine - Benchmark Vehicle (Road A)
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
(Level Surface)
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4


Bravo Mine - Benchmark Vehicle (Road A)
16.00
15.00
14.00
13.00
12.00
11.00
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Bravo Mine - Benchmark Vehicle (Road C)
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
(Level Surface)
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Bravo Mine - Benchmark Vehicle (Road C)
15.00
14.00
13.00
12.00
11.00
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
ABS Average

0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
(Level Surface)
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

20.00
19.00
18.00
17.00
16.00
15.00
14.00
13.00
12.00
11.00
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
ABS Average
Bravo Mine - Benchmark Vehicle (Road D)
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
(Level Surface)
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4


Bravo Mine - Benchmark Vehicle (Road D)
14.00
13.00
12.00
11.00
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
ABS Average
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
(Level Surface)
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

16.00
15.00
14.00
13.00
12.00
11.00
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
(Level Surface)
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
38.00
36.00
34.00
32.00
30.00
28.00
26.00
24.00
22.00
20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Bravo Mine - Benchmark Vehicle Road Comparison
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Road A ABS Avg Road E ABS Avg Road 17 ABS Avg Road D ABS Avg Road C ABS Avg Road C Ramp ABS Avg

Bravo Mine - Benchmark Vehicle ABS Speed Sensitivity (Road E)
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
(Level Surface)
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

62km/hr Avg Test Speed (n=4) 41km/hr Avg Test Speed (n=8) ABS Average
Bravo Mine - Benchmark Vehicle ABS Test Speed Sensitivity (Road D)
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
(Level Surface)
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

60km/hr Avg Test Speed (n=3) 44km/hr Avg Test Speed (n=8) ABS Average
Bravo Mine - Toyota Troop Carrier (Road D)
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
(Level Surface)
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Bravo Mine - Toyota Troop Carrier (Road D)
11.00
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
NonABS Average
Bravo Mine - Toyota Prado (Road D)
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
(Level Surface)
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
NonABS Average ABS Average ABS Minimum ABS Maximum
Bravo Mine - Toyota Prado (Road D)
14.00
13.00
12.00
11.00
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Bravo Mine - Mercedes Bus (Road D)
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
(Level Surface)
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Bravo Mine - Mercedes Bus (Road D)
12.00
11.00
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Bravo Mine - Terrex 3700 (Road D)
0.25
0.20
(Level Surface)
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Bravo Mine - Terrex 3700 (Road D)
50.00
47.50
45.00
42.50
40.00
37.50
35.00
32.50
30.00
27.50
25.00
22.50
20.00
17.50
15.00
12.50
10.00
7.50
5.00
2.50
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
NonABS Average
Bravo Mine - Cat 793C (Road D)
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
(Level Surface)
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Bravo Mine - Cat 793C (Road D)
32.50
30.00
27.50
25.00
22.50
20.00
17.50
15.00
12.50
10.00
7.50
5.00
2.50
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
NonABS Average

Bravo Mine - Vehicle Comparison (Road D)
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Prado NonABS Avg Mercedes NonABS Avg Terrex NonABS Avg 793C NonABS Avg
Prado ABS Avg Mercedes ABS Avg Troop Carrier NonABS Avg

11.3 APPENDIX C – MISCELLANEOUS

Hardness
Mine Vehicle Wheel Tyre Pressure (psi) Photograph
(Shore A)
FR Goodyear Eagle RSA P235/70R16 34.5/32.0 78.0
2009 Jeep Cherokee FL Goodyear Eagle RSA P235/70R16 34.5/30.0 79.0

Insert Photo
(Benchmark) RR Goodyear Eagle RSA P235/70R16 34.5/32.5 80.0
RL Goodyear Eagle RSA P235/70R16 34.5/32.5 79.0
FR Michelin XDR C (E4R) 33.00R51 - 58.0
FL Michelin XDR B (E4R) 33.00R51 - 59.0
Alpha Caterpillar 785C
RR Michelin XDR B (E4R) 33.00R51 - 58.5
RL Goodyear RL-4H (E-4) 33.00R51 - 58.5
FR Goodyear Wrangler Duratrac LT225/75R16 115/112O - 70.5

2009 Mitsubishi FL Goodyear Wrangler Duratrac LT225/75R16 115/112O - 70.5
Triton Dual Cab
4WD Utility RR Goodyear Wrangler Duratrac LT225/75R16 115/112O - 65.0
RL Goodyear Wrangler Duratrac LT225/75R16 115/112O - 62.0
FR Dunlop Grand Trek AT20 265/65R17 112S 33.5 65.0
FL Dunlop Grand Trek AT20 265/65R17 112S 32.5 66.0

2010 Toyota Prado
RR Dunlop Grand Trek AT20 265/65R17 112S 33.5 66.0
RL Dunlop Grand Trek AT20 265/65R17 112S 32.5 66.0
FR Mickey Thompson Baja MTZ 265/75R16 41.5 65.0
2011 Toyota FL Mickey Thompson Baja MTZ 265/75R16 41.5 66.0
Landcruiser Troop
Carrier RR Mickey Thompson Baja MTZ 265/75R16 41.0 66.0
RL Mickey Thompson Baja MTZ 265/75R16 42.5 68.0

FR Dunlop Grand Trek AT20 265/65R17 112S 32.5 67.0
2008 Toyota Prado FL Dunlop Grand Trek AT20 265/65R17 112S 32.0 68.0
(Benchmark) RR Dunlop Grand Trek AT20 265/65R17 112S 32.0 68.0
RL Dunlop Grand Trek AT20 265/65R17 112S 32.5 67.0
Bravo
FR Continental Vanco Four Season 205/75R16 110/108R 48.0 77.0
Mercedes Sprinter FL Continental Vanco Four Season 205/75R16 110/108R 45.5 78.0
Bus 4WD RR Continental Vanco Four Season 205/75R16 110/108R Duals 78.0
RL Continental Vanco Four Season 205/75R16 110/108R Duals 79.0

FR Bridgestone V Steel Rock Deep Premium 40.00R57 110.0 66.0
FL Bridgestone V Steel Rock Deep Premium 40.00R57 110.0 65.0
Terex 3700
RR Michelin XDR B 40.00R57 110.0 62.0
RL Michelin XDR B 40.00R57 110.0 59.0
FR Michelin XDR B 40.00R57 110.0 60.0
FL Michelin XDR B 40.00R57 110.0 60.0
Caterpillar 793C
RR Michelin XDR B 40.00R57 110.0 60.0
RL Michelin XDR B 40.00R57 110.0 60.0
Alpha Mine - Average Friction Reduction Bravo Mine - Friction Reduction Road 17
Water Application Friction Reduction % Water Application Friction Reduction %
(mm) Coefficient (mm) Coefficient
0.0 0.566 0.0 0.684
0.4 0.339 40% 0.4 0.240 65%
0.8 0.203 64% 0.8 0.186 73%
1.2 0.190 66% 1.2 0.139 80%

11.4 APPENDIX D – REFERENCES
1. Queensland Department of Main Roads

Road Planning and Design Manual (August 2004)
2. Guidelines for Mine Haul Road Design (2001)

Dwayne D Tannant & Bruce Regensburg
3. Queensland Coal Mining Safety and Health Regulation 2001
4. Transport Operations (Road Use management-Vehicle Standards and Safety) Regulation 2010
5. Mines Inspectorate Safety bulletin 94 Published 22 January 2010

6. Mines Inspectorate Safety bulletin 99 Published 23 August 2010
http://mines.industry.qld.gov.au/safety-and-health/mining-safety-health.htm
7. Vericom Computers Inc

VC4000DAQ Performance and Braking Test Computer Owner’s Manual
http://www.vericomcomputers.com/
8. 2007-2011 RitchieSpecs Equipment Specifications Ritchie Bros.

Coal Mine Road Network Surface Friction Report 2011 PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Coal Mine Road Network Surface Friction Report 2011 PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

COAL MINE ROAD NETWORK SURFACE FRICTION

A Pilot Study of Friction Evaluation Methodology and

David Tulloch David Stocker BEng

Report Limitations and Disclaimer ........................................................................................................................ 4

1.0 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................... 6

1.1 Scope ..................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.0 Background of Technology Application ................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Methodology of Friction Supply Measure ........................................................................................... 7

3.0 Test Site Procedure ................................................................................................................................... 8

3.1 Test Result Adjustment Procedure ...................................................................................................... 9

4.0 Mine Site Benchmarking Protocol ............................................................................................................ 9

4.1 Test Site Location Recommendations .................................................................................................. 9

4.2 Water Application .............................................................................................................................. 10

4.2.1 Recommendation ........................................................................................................................... 10

4.3 Test vehicle Selection ......................................................................................................................... 11

4.3.1 Recommendation ........................................................................................................................... 12

4.4 Braking System Selection ................................................................................................................... 12

4.4.1 Recommendation ........................................................................................................................... 12

5.0 Mine Site Safety Friction Analysis .......................................................................................................... 12

5.1 Friction Supply .................................................................................................................................... 13

5.2 Friction Demand ................................................................................................................................. 14

6.0 Friction Supply Intervention Levels ........................................................................................................ 14

6.1 The Traffic Signal Model ..................................................................................................................... 15

6.1.1 Recommendation ........................................................................................................................... 15

6.2 Friction Analysis Table ........................................................................................................................ 16

7.0 Vehicle Friction Correction Factors ........................................................................................................ 17

8.0 Project Alpha Mine Test Results ............................................................................................................. 18

8.1 Alpha Mine (South East Queensland) ................................................................................................ 18

8.2 High Clay Content Site Results ........................................................................................................... 18

RoadSafety Training Services Pty Ltd Page 2

8.2.1 Composition Graph of Test Results ............................................................................................... 20

8.2.2 Braking Distance Graph at 35km/h ............................................................................................... 20

8.2.3 Imported Road Material Construction (High Performance) ......................................................... 21

8.3 Vehicle Type Evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 21

8.3.1 CAT 785C Rear Dumper Graph ....................................................................................................... 22

8.4 Alpha Mine; Discussion of results ...................................................................................................... 22

9.0 Project Bravo Mine Test Results ............................................................................................................. 23

9.1 Bravo Mine (Central Queensland) ..................................................................................................... 23

9.2 Bravo Mine Test Locations ................................................................................................................. 23

9.3 Bravo Mine Test Vehicles ................................................................................................................... 25

9.4 Test Result Graphs .............................................................................................................................. 25

9.4.1 Graph Road C (Dump Ramp) .......................................................................................................... 25

9.4.2 Graph Road E (Mudstone) ............................................................................................................. 26

9.4.3 Graph Road 17 (High Clay Content Surface) .................................................................................. 26

9.5 Vehicle Comparison Graph ................................................................................................................. 27

9.6 Road Comparison Graph .................................................................................................................... 27

9.6 Bravo Mine; Discussion of results ...................................................................................................... 28

10.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. 28

11.1 Appendix A – Factor of Safety Case Studies ...................................................................................... 30

11.2 Appendix B – Pilot Program Graphs ................................................................................................... 39

11.3 Appendix C – Miscellaneous .............................................................................................................. 59

11.4 Appendix D – References ................................................................................................................... 61

RoadSafety Training Services Pty Ltd Page 3

REPORT LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMER

 Evaporation rates in terms of surface friction recovery related to time.

RoadSafety Training Services Pty Ltd Page 4

The core findings of the Pilot Friction Assessment Program include:

RoadSafety Training Services Pty Ltd Page 5

Section 128 Specification for design and construction of mine roads

Section 129 Standard operating procedure

 Introduce engineering controls in place of administrative controls to reduce or eliminate the

RoadSafety Training Services Pty Ltd Page 6

2.0 BACKGROUND OF TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION