Automatic Breaking System

Thiess Field Trials
Reverse Alert Technology
Automatic Braking System
Contents
1.Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 2
2. Background ........................................................................................................................ 7
2.1 Reverse Alert Technology .............................................................................................. 7
3. Trial Specifics ................................................................................................................... 10
3.1 Vehicles ........................................................................................................................ 10
3.2 Trial Period ................................................................................................................... 13
3.3 Trial Objectives ............................................................................................................. 13
4. Findings ............................................................................................................................ 13
4.1 Trial Limitations ............................................................................................................ 13
4.2 Light Commercial Vehicles ........................................................................................... 14
4.3 Hino Trucks .................................................................................................................. 18
5. Summary of Results and Recommendations ................................................................ 24
5.1 Light Commercial Vehicles ........................................................................................... 24
5.2 Trucks ........................................................................................................................... 25
6. Future Reverse Alert Designs and Developments ........................................................ 26
Appendix A Person A Feedback Sheet (Light Commercial) ......................................... 28
Appendix B Person B Feedback Sheet (Light Commercial) ......................................... 29
Appendix C Person C Feedback Sheet (Trucks) ............................................................ 30
Appendix D Person D Feedback Sheet (Trucks) ............................................................ 31
www.reversealertaustralia.com.au
Thiess Field Trials
Page 1 of 31
1. Executive Summary
This report provides a summary of the Reverse Alert field trials
involving Surveillance Guard Co (SVG), Thiess plant and
personnel from the QGC Coal Seam Gas Project at Dalby,
Qld and the Thiess Energy Depot at Eagle Farm, Brisbane.
The Reverse Alert system, developed by SVG, is a world first
aftermarket automatic braking system that can be fitted to any
vehicle, does not conflict with Australian Design Requirements
and has been extensively trialled across the passenger
vehicle market, road transportation and taxi industries.
The system begins with ultrasonic sensors that are fitted to the rear of the vehicle. When
reversing, if these sensors detect an object at 1.6m a signal is sent to a solenoid located at
the front of the vehicle. The solenoid is attached to a flexible cable that runs through the
firewall and is attached to a universal brake pedal clamp that is fitted on the brake pedal.
Subsequently, when the solenoid is activated this pulls the brake pedal - stopping the
vehicle automatically.
To allow the driver to park the vehicle or engage in tight reversing manoeuvres, the system
also has a park mode. In this mode the sensors are reduced to 40cm. In addition, the system
has an override button that overrides the braking system when held. When the override
button is released, the automatic braking system is again engaged. This mode is activated
when the driver needs to reverse closer than 40cm, or when the reversing angle is so
extreme that the sensors detect the terrain.
For the Thiess field trials another system was designed that detects at 2.5m. This system
was developed as it was the first time the technology would be trialled in an environment
where the vehicles would reverse predominantly on loose dirt and not concrete. The potential
issue for a 1.6m system was that if a vehicle was reversing at a certain speed (on loose dirt),
the vehicle may not stop in time before contact was made.
The Reverse Alert technology was installed on the following vehicles:
Two Ford Ranger Light Commercial Vehicles (1 x 1.6m and 1 x 2.5m

systems) and;
Thiess Field Trials
Page 2 of 31
Two Hino Trucks (both equipped with the 1.6m system) - EWP and Line
Truck.
To determine the effectiveness of the technology, the trial consisted of three objectives:
1. Determine whether Reverse Alert is a pro-active means of reducing the risks
associated with people and moving plant (assessed from the perspective of the driver
and by analysing reversing data collected during the trial).
2. Determine whether Reverse Alert can be successfully installed and adapted to
construction vehicles (assessed from the perspective of installation technicians and
drivers).
3. Determine if the technology is user friendly and does not distract the driver when
operating the vehicle (driver feedback).
The trial ran for a period of four months and concluded with the collation of data from the
field reversing tests (reversing towards a human cut out), verbal feedback and the operator
feedback sheets (Likert scale).
The data collected throughout the trial and the feedback received from the participants
indicates that all objectives of the trial were met.
Specific highlights of the trial included:
Light Commercial Vehicles - Trials produced a 97% success rate when reversing
tests were performed on loose dirt (137 attempts 4 hits). This is a significant result,
particularly when taking into consideration that the hits/contact was made when
speeds were above 5km/h. The 1.6m system hit on three occasions and the 2.5m
made contact just once.
Light Commercial Vehicles - Both systems (1.6m and 2.5m) performed well when
reversing tests were undertaken. The 2.5m system tests, as expected, recorded
greater distances between vehicle and cut-out. However, the 1.6m still performed well
at speeds of 7km/h a speed that would be considered well above normal reversing.
Hino Trucks Reversing tests recorded a 91.1% success rate (103 out of 113
attempts). Line truck made contact on seven occasions and the EWP had three
contacts.
Thiess Field Trials
Page 3 of 31
Hino Trucks the reversing data is notable given that the trucks were only fitted with
4 sensors which resulted in numerous dead spots. Testing of the sections of the truck
with adequate coverage found that both trucks could easily handle speeds of 5km/h.
And even though speeds of 7km/h were not tested; there is enough data to indicate
that a truck fitted with more sensors could also potentially handle speeds of 7km/h.
From a risk management perspective, the reversing data/attempts could be

considered 250 (total of all reversing tests trucks and light commercial) high
potential serious incidents. As such, the introduction of the automatic braking
technology resulted in a drastic reduction in the level of risk. The technology proves
that if a driver doesnt see an object the system will respond and apply the brake.
Three out of four drivers provided very positive feedback and supported further use of
the technology across the industry.
The technology did not impede on the safe operation of the vehicles.
All four drivers agreed or strongly agreed that because the technology can apply the
brake, the system makes the driver more aware when reversing.
The four vehicles fitted with the technology were not involved in any reversing
incidents during the trial.
Issues which were identified during the trial included:
Very small dead spot was identified in the middle of the Rangers. This is not a major
issue given the tests produced a 97% success rate.
There were, however, major dead spots across the rear of the trucks. This was
expected due to the size of the trucks and the fact that only four sensors were
installed. When these dead spots were tested against areas that received better
coverage, there were distinct fluctuations in the measurements. If these dead spots
were not present, the average stopping distance would be a lot higher, and the
amount of hits with the cut-out would have been considerably less.
One participant (Person D) from the Thiess Energy Division (trucks) did not support
the use of the technology, citing concerns that the braking is too aggressive and that
the system was always braking. Management reversed both trucks and were asked
to assess the braking severity. The managers were of the opinion that the braking
Thiess Field Trials
Page 4 of 31
was within reason. In relation to the concerns that the system was always braking,
the driver verbalised that the system makes it very hard to reverse in traffic i.e. three
point turns. This feedback indicated that the driver was not using the park mode when
wanting to manoeuvre the vehicle in tight spaces. In hindsight, the initial roll out and
training could have been managed better, resulting in the driver having a better
understanding of how to interact with the system.
Person C provided verbal feedback during the trial in relation to an experience with
the EWP truck and the override button. The driver advised that he had to perform a
reverse hill start in the manual EWP truck and because of the environment he
needed to override the system, but had extreme difficulties doing so. Consequently,
before the next driving shift the system was modified so that if this scenario occurred
again, the driver had the capacity to flick a switch rather than having to hold the
button. This piece of feedback is extremely important and SVG is considering options
for future redesign of the override mode.
Thiess Energy Drivers reported that their activities often involved reversing the trucks
200 metres or more in remote environments with dense scrub and hanging trees.
Because of the environment the drivers said they need the ability to turn off the
system for a period of time. The drivers were told that by selecting park mode this
would reduce the sensors to 40cm, which should help the situation, but the drivers
rebutted and said the long grass will still trigger the system. So, after taking into
consideration the feedback, using override (for a period of time) in these
circumstances would be preferable. Thankfully, the drivers reported that in these
environments they are not operating in close proximity to other workers. Therefore,
any future use of the override button would not be in the vicinity of pedestrians or
workers.
Person B made the comment that people could become lazy and rely on the braking
when reversing towards objects. To overcome this, it needs to be clearly stated in any
driver induction sessions that the technology is an aid only and does not replace
existing procedures.
Thiess Field Trials
Page 5 of 31
Recommendations
Light Commercial Vehicles
Taking into consideration that the technology needs to incorporate a balance between safety
and what is practical, this report recommends that the light commercial vehicles be installed
with neither the 1.6m system nor 2.5m system but a 2m system instead. The reason
behind this being that if the 2.5m system is driven in an urban environment, the driver will
very quickly have issues with the system and will be constantly putting the vehicle in park
mode. Basically, the 2.5m system will detect too many objects. The 1.6m and 2.5m systems
both easily handled the tests at 7km/h, so a system that detects at 2m (with 40cm park
mode) would be more than capable of handling these higher speeds on loose dirt.
Trucks
The installation of the technology on trucks require a 6/8 sensor system to ensure adequate
coverage across the rear of the trucks. In addition, it is recommended that the detection
range for trucks be extended to 2m (with 40cm park mode). While the testing of the areas of
the truck with solid coverage found that the system could easily handle 5km/h and most likely
7km/h (not tested), there is a concern that due to the dangers associated with reversing
trucks, additional protection should be designed into the system. This would mean that if a
driver was to reverse at an excessive speed above 5km/h, the system with a 2m range would
give the truck additional time to stop. This additional range will result in the sensors detecting
more objects, so it is imperative that drivers are fully briefed on the operation of the park
mode. Without the correct use of park mode, attempting to park or execute three point
manoeuvres with a 2 metre system would be extremely difficult. Essentially, the idea of the
Reverse Alert technology is to prevent incidents from occurring; the 2m system will help to
achieve that goal.
Overall, the trial of the Reverse Alert technology produced impressive results both
reversing data and driver feedback. As such, the use of automatic braking technology in a
construction environment does have potential, and further applications of the technology
should be explored.
Thiess Field Trials
Page 6 of 31
2. Background
The size, inertia, weight and power of mobile machinery used in construction present
significant hazards to people and equipment working in their area of operation. A major
reason for these hazards is the operators restricted view of the surroundings and the
extensive range of vision shadows or blind spots in which people or objects can be hidden
from view.
To assist the operators when reversing in close proximity to people or plant, an array of risk
orientated controls ranging from cameras, proximity devices and beepers have been
trialled, albeit with mixed success. As a result, the industry is still facing challenges in relation
to reversing and implementing an appropriate range of controls that are effective in reducing
the level of risk.
Thiess, understanding the need for continuous improvement, recognised the importance of
identifying and trialling engineering controls designed to reduce risk. To this end, Thiess
partnered with Surveillance Guard Co (SVG) to trial an automatic braking system that has
the potential to drastically reduce the level of risk associated with reversing vehicles.
This technology, called Reverse Alert, is a world first aftermarket automatic braking product
that has just become commercially available across a variety of industries but yet to be
proven in a construction environment.
While the technology was never designed with the intent of being a WHS initiative for the civil
construction industry but rather child safety origins, the Thiess trials will determine whether
this approach to automatically applying the brake should be considered for further use
across the industry.
2.1 Reverse Alert Technology

The Reverse Alert technology is a world first aftermarket product that can be applied to any
vehicle with a brake pedal new or used - and does not conflict with Australian Design
Requirements.
Thiess Field Trials
Page 7 of 31
The technology has four unique features:

1. When reversing, if the ultrasonic sensors detect an object at 1.6m this sends a signal
to a solenoid located at the front of the vehicle. The solenoid is attached to a flexible
cable that runs through the firewall and the cable is attached to a universal brake
pedal clamp that is fitted on the brake pedal. So, when the solenoid is activated this
pulls the brake pedal stopping the vehicle automatically.
2. If a vehicle is stationery (site car park) and the operator starts the car, selects the
reversing gear, the brake will be immediately applied in the event that an object is
detected within the range of the sensors.
3. Park Mode: when the operator needs to park the vehicle, the driver presses the P
button, allowing the vehicle to reverse 40cm towards an object before the brakes are
engaged.
4. Override Mode: this mode is used in the event the driver wants to reverse past the
detected object. The driver holds the O button to disengage the braking system.
When the button is released the system is again engaged.
Examples of system flexibility and how the driver interacts with the technology.
Driving Example 1: If a driver wants to perform a three point turn in an environment with
little space and doesnt want the system to activate at 1.6m, the driver presses the Park
Mode/P button. This reduces the sensors to 40cm thus allowing the driver to manoeuvre the
vehicle without the brake being applied at 1.6m. In this mode the vehicle needs to be
reversed at very slow speeds so that the system has time to respond. This mode not only
gives the driver flexibility when reversing, but the park mode is also a valuable tool when
parking close to other objects.
Driving Example 2: The driver is about to reverse down a very steep piece of terrain and
doesnt want the brakes to activate. The driver presses the Park Mode/P Button so that the
sensor range is reduced from 1.6m to 40cm. If the use of Park mode still activates the brake,
the driver holds the Override/O button until the vehicle has passed over the piece of terrain.
Thiess Field Trials
Page 8 of 31
Park mode and override buttons
Clamp attached to Hino brake pedal
Reverse Alert R&D

The Reverse Alert technology has been in development for more than 2.5 years, trialled on
more than 60 vehicles across Australia; including passenger vehicles, vans, taxis and road
transportation trucks.
During this period of testing the technology across a range of vehicles and environments, it
was discovered that the ideal sensor detection range was 1.6m, for two reasons:
1. Balance between reversing safety and whats practical.
2. Reversing activities are predominantly conducted on concrete/firm surfaces.
However, when the Thiess opportunity became available it was decided that another system
with a longer detection range be developed for the trials to take into consideration the fact
that reversing is undertaken on loose dirt which could result in longer stopping distances. As
such, a 2.5m system was designed for the Thiess trial.
There was however, a concern that the 2.5m system would detect too many objects and if
the driver wanted to reverse in a shopping centre/town environment the driver would find the
extra detection distance to be annoying. Theoretically, the 2.5m system may have its
advantages when reversing on site, but it certainly did have its potential drawbacks. In
essence, this is exactly the type of answers/feedback the Thiess trials would provide and as
such help guide the industry in relation to suitability 1.6m v 2.5m.
Thiess Field Trials
Page 9 of 31
3. Trial Specifics
3.1 Vehicles
The following vehicles were selected for the Reverse Alert trials:
Two Ford Ranger Light Commercial Vehicles Dalby QGC Coal Seam Gas Project
Two Hino Trucks (specs below) Eagle Farm Depot (Thiess Energy Division)
EWP-
Hino Ranger GT/ Aichi EWP, 2005 Model, Tare: 9640 kg, GVM: 12000 kg
LINE TRUCK- Hino 500 Series 1022, 2012 Model Tare: 5900 kg, GVM: 10400 kg
Originally, the decision was made to install the technology on a tip truck and water truck at
the Dalby QGC Project, but given that the technology had never been fitted to these
particular items of plant and the distance between Dalby and the Brisbane workshop posed
technical concerns for the installation technicians, the decision was made to source trucks
located in Brisbane (Thiess Energy). Although the selected trucks from the Thiess Energy
division are not involved in the civil construction industry, any lessons learnt from the Hino
trials has direct applications/benefits to trucks utilised in civil construction.
Ford Rangers
Two different variations of the Reverse Alert technology were made available for the Ford
Ranger trial:
1. A system that detects at 1.6m and is programmed with a 40cm Park Mode and;
2. A 2.5m system with a 40cm Park Mode.
Each Ranger was fitted with a different system and both vehicles were also equipped with a
reversing camera. In addition, reed switches were fitted to both Rangers in the event they
needed to tow a trailer. The Reed switch turns off the sensors so that the system doesnt
detect the presence of a trailer and apply the brake.
Interestingly, when the Rangers were being fitted in the workshop and testing was
undertaken prior to deployment, it was discovered that the Ranger fitted with the 1.6m
system would easily stop the Ranger when speeds were increased. For example, tests
revealed that when the Ranger was reversed at 10km/h there was, on average, a distance of
approx. 50cm between vehicle and object (video does exist). However, the question
Thiess Field Trials
Page 10 of 31
remained: what would be the results when the Ranger is reversed on a construction site with
loose dirt?
The picture below highlights the positioning of the sensors when fitted to the Ranger. A drop
bar was utilised because the Reverse Alert sensors need to protrude and not be installed
flush.
An attempt was made to source individual sensor surface mounts before the vehicles were
deployed to site. However, there were no surface mounts on the market that could allow the
sensors to work as designed. This will be mentioned further into the report but by the end of
the trial, SVG had designed special surface mounts that can be used rather than the drop
bars in some future installations.
Drop bar with sensors
Sensor positioning Ford Ranger
Hino Trucks
The decision was made to fit both trucks with a 1.6m system. Workshop testing of the 1.6m
system found that the trucks were stopping comfortably before the detected object.
Moreover, the air braking systems of the trucks greatly assisted the truck in coming to a halt.
Workshop testing revealed that the EWP and Line Trucks when reversed at higher speeds of
8-10km/h the trucks were stopping approx. 50cm from the object (video does exist).
For trucks this size and weight to stop at these speeds was a very encouraging start to the
trial. But, as mentioned previously, the real test would be the loose dirt and what this means
in relation to stopping distances.
Thiess Field Trials
Page 11 of 31
As was the case with the Rangers, drop bars were again used in the installation of the
technology, but in this instance two different sizes were utilised. Reed switches were also
installed so that the sensors could be disabled during towing. In addition, the same size
solenoid that was fitted to the Rangers was also used for the truck installation, except the
solenoid was 24 volt.
EWP Truck sensor positioning
Line Truck sensor positioning
When the technology was being installed on the trucks, Thiess were made aware that the
system being fitted to the trucks would not be the system that would ever be released to the
truck market. Essentially, the exact sensor system (4
sensors) that was fitted to the Rangers (passenger
vehicle version) was installed on the trucks. This meant
that due to the width of the trucks there were dead spots
as there were not enough sensors to cover the rear of
the truck. To put this into perspective, the image of the
hatchback to the left has 4 sensors that just cover the
width of the vehicle (approximately 1.6m in width). On the other hand, the Hino trucks are
approx. 2.35m in width.
Therefore, the system fitted to the trucks was not ideal. However, it is a trial and the purpose
of the trial is to determine whether the concept has merit.
SVG have been developing a system for trucks that could accommodate 6 or 8 sensors, but
unfortunately this wasnt ready for the Thiess trials. The 6/8 sensor system will be discussed
further into the report.
Thiess Field Trials
Page 12 of 31
Difference between Ranger and Hino Installation

The Hino installation differed slightly to how the technology was installed on the Rangers.
The truck system consisted of 24 volt circuitry, more cabling and the brake pedal clamp had
to be redesigned to accommodate for the presence of the steering column in relation to the
brake pedal.
3.2 Trial Period

The technology fitted to the Ford Ranger and the Hino Trucks was trialled for a total of four
months in a field environment. The technology still remains on the assigned trial vehicles.
3.3 Trial Objectives

To determine the effectiveness of the technology, the trial consisted of three objectives:
1. Determine whether Reverse Alert is a pro-active means of reducing the risks
associated with people and moving plant (assessed from the perspective of the
driver and by analysing reversing data collected during the trial).
2. Determine whether Reverse Alert can be successfully installed and adapted to
construction vehicles (assessed from the perspective of installation technicians
and drivers).
3. Determine if the technology is user friendly and doesnt distract the driver when
operating the vehicle (driver feedback).
4. Findings
4.1 Trial Limitations
Speed Data
The field reversing tests were performed without any equipment that could identify the actual
speed of the vehicle. As such, when the drivers were asked to reverse at a certain speed,
there is the likelihood that the speed was not the speed recorded in this report. For example,
there were multiple occasions where the light commercial vehicles appeared to be reversing
at a greater speed than requested. It can be difficult controlling the speed of a Ranger
(manual) because the vehicle can idle at approx. 7km/h. This limitation in the data has to be
noted, given the absence of any workshop speed testing equipment.
Thiess Field Trials
Page 13 of 31
4.2 Light Commercial Vehicles

Field reversing data was collected on three occasions during the trial. The data collection
process involved the drivers reversing towards a human cut-out. The drivers were asked to
reverse at certain speeds (watching the speedometer) and simply reverse the vehicle
(without looking) until the brakes were applied automatically. These tests were performed in
a controlled environment and each sensor/section of the Ranger was tested.
For the testing the system was tested at three speeds 2kmh, 5km/h and 7km/h. When the
brakes were applied and the vehicle stopped - the distance between vehicle and cut out was
recorded.
1.6m System
Speed*
Attempts
Hits
2km/h
5km/h
7km/h
30
35
30
0
2
1
Avg
Stopping
Distance
1.26m
0.89m
0.55m
Stopping
Percentage
100%
94.2%
96.6%
*For the majority of tests the vehicle appeared to be reversing faster than requested.
The system performed very well when tested at 2km/h, resulting in zero hits. At 5km/h the
system did have two hits but on both occasions, it did appear the vehicle was reversing
quicker than 5km/h. Moreover, both hits occurred in nearly the exact position middle of the
vehicle. On both occasions the solenoid could be heard activating but the system didnt
respond in time. Overall, a 94% success rate is excellent at 5km/h on loose dirt.
At 7km/h the system also performed very well, with the one hit being on the left hand side of
the vehicle. In this instance, the solenoid was again activated but the system didnt respond
in time.
Although the decision was made not to test past 7km/h, the 1.6m system responded quite
well on loose dirt and as the driver indicated, there is no way he would ever reverse the
vehicle above 5km/h. So, with that in mind the data is very positive. But to highlight the
differences between reversing on concrete and loose dirt, the workshop tests found that the
1.6m system was stopping 50cm from object when reversed at 10km/h. In comparison, the
field reversing tests produced a 55cm (average) stopping distance at only 7km/h.
Thiess Field Trials
Page 14 of 31
Observations and Interactions
Slight Dead spot - This sounds strange given the 1.6m system had a 96.85% success
rate (3 hits out of 95 attempts) but there appeared to be a slight dead spot in the
middle of the Ranger. Two out of the three hits occurred in the middle and when data
was being taken for testing undertaken on the middle of the Ranger, there was a
distinct difference. For example, on one particular occasion a measurement of 20cm
was recorded and this was when the vehicle was reversing at 2km/h. The only time
the data was this low, apart from hits, was when the object was near the centre of the
Ranger.
Stopping distances on cement (workshop) the Ranger would pull up nearly

immediately; on the loose dirt there was a distinct delay in the vehicle coming to a
complete halt.
Contact When the vehicle made contact with the cut-out the solenoid could be
heard activating. This indicates that the system did detect the object, but the vehicle
could not stop in time.
2.5m System
Speed
Attempts
Hits
2km/h
5km/h
7km/h
10km/h
10
15
15
2
0
0
0
1*
Avg
Stopping
Distance
1.79m
1.73m
1.42m
0.10m
Stopping
Percentage
100%
100%
100%
50%
*10km/h hit the Ranger only just touched the object speed appeared slightly higher than 10km/h. The hit
destroyed cut out, so further testing was abandoned.
The average stopping distance between vehicle and cut out was superior to the 1.6m results.
The system easily handled the tests at 7km/h with an average distance of 1.42m. Note the
average distance for the 2km and 5km tests they are nearly the same. As mentioned
previously, there are limitations with the speed data. In this instance it is clear that when the
vehicle was meant to be travelling at 2km/h it was closer to 5km/h. That said, the tests did
determine reliability of the system, even though the actual speed is not entirely accurate.
Thiess Field Trials
Page 15 of 31
Slight Dead spot The distance between vehicle and object was again very low
when the cut-out was in the centre of the vehicle. This, however, only occurred twice,
but on these occasions the measurements were 70cm and 75cm at speeds of 2km/h
and 5km/h respectively. This is the only time the distance between the cut-out and
the object was that low, apart from the two tests at 10km/h. This was a significant
drop given the results from other locations across the vehicle were averaging near
the 2m mark.
Technology Inspections
During the trial the technology was inspected twice by SVG technicians to determine how the
technology was holding up to the rigours of the industry. These inspections confirmed that
the drivers were keeping the sensors very clean, but most importantly; the key components
of the system were working as designed.
Below Images: Testing of the 2.5m system
Thiess Field Trials
Page 16 of 31
Driver Feedback
Verbal
Both drivers reported that they were happy with their respective systems. The drivers did
mention that on occasions the terrain would activate the brake when in reverse, but they
were confident in the use of the override button. The drivers also mentioned that on
occasions when they were reverse parking, the system would not always detect the dirt
mounds. The drivers were told that the due to the shape of the mound (round) the sensors
would not always identify such objects due to the sensors signal simply bouncing off and not
returning the signal. However, drivers should never rely on the technology to stop the
vehicle, as this has the potential for bad habits to emerge. Person B does mention the
potential for this in his written feedback sheet.
This is an extremely important piece of feedback. When drivers are operating a vehicle fitted
with the Reverse Alert system they need to continue with all existing reversing procedures.
The technology is an aid only and is not infallible. It should not be relied on when reversing.
For example, when reversing the vehicle the driver still needs to scan the mirrors and use
the reversing camera. The automatic braking technology supplements existing company
procedures in relation to reversing. Any future roll out of the technology will need to be
accompanied by a rigorous induction that educates drivers on the role of the technology
within a company safety policy context.
Feedback Sheet (Likert Scale)

The written feedback from both drivers was very positive. The feedback sheets for Person A
and Person B are included in this report as Appendix A and Appendix B.
Person A 1.6m System
The following are responses to key components of the feedback sheet:
Understanding that the system could apply the brake, I was more aware when reversing the
vehicle Person A ticked Agree
I found that the brake was being applied too often Person A ticked Disagree
In my opinion, I believe that automatic braking technology should be considered for further
use across the civil construction industry Person A ticked Agree
Thiess Field Trials
Page 17 of 31
Person B 2.5m System

vehicle Person B ticked Strongly Agree
I found that the brake was being applied too often Person B ticked Strongly Disagree
use across the civil construction industry Person B ticked Agree
4.3 Hino Trucks

As with the trials on the Rangers, the Hino trucks were reversed toward a cut-out at various
speeds 2km/h and 5km/h. These tests were conducted on loose dirt. All areas of the truck
were tested and measurements were taken to ensure the tests identified the locations and
extent of any dead spots. As mentioned previously, there are limitations with the speed data,
but it has to be said the drivers of the trucks appeared to be consistently reversing very close
to the requested speed 2km/h and 5km.
Cut-out used in the truck testing
Thiess Field Trials
Page 18 of 31
Line Truck Data
Speed
Attempts
Hits
2km/h
5km/h
36
27
0
7*
Avg
Stopping
Distance
0.96m
0.31m
Stopping
Percentage
100%
74.07%
*Two of these hits only just made contact with the tow bar
Testing of the Line Truck began at 2km/h and during these tests no hits were recorded.
However, dead spots were located approx. 60-70cm from the edges of the truck (both sides)
and in the middle of the truck. The area near the yellow ladder on the right hand side of the
truck was barely covered, resulting in very weak data.
When the cut out was placed in these locations the distance between truck and cut out
ranged from 30cm to 60cm when tested at 2km/h. In comparison, the data was significantly
higher when other sections of the truck were tested. For example, on 21 occasions the
distance between object and truck was 1m or more (highest 1.5m). So, if the truck was fitted
with additional sensors, the average stopping distance would easily be higher than 1.2m.
When the truck speed increased to 5km/h there were seven hits in total - all of which
occurred in the areas that had weak coverage. When testing was undertaken in these areas
and contact wasnt made, the distance was still a concern. In these instances the distance
ranged from 5cm to 30cm. To put this into perspective, sections of the truck with good
sensor coverage recorded distances ranging from 40cm to 80cm when the speed was
5km/h.
If the truck had been fitted with additional sensors, further testing at 7km/h may have been
undertaken. The decision was made to cease testing at 5km/h, given the results from the
5km/h tests. Theoretically, if the truck was fitted with additional sensors so that the dead
spots were reduced, it is quite possible the truck could handle the higher speeds.
When the trucks were being tested in the workshop prior to deployment, it was found that the
trucks were stopping 50cm from the object when speeds were increased to 10km/h.
Therefore, while the truck may not be able to stop quickly enough to avoid hitting an object
on loose dirt when reversed at 10km/h, a truck fitted with more sensors would probably
handle 7km/h.
Thiess Field Trials
Page 19 of 31
Notable dead spots when using only 4 sensors on a truck.
Obvious delay with the line truck coming to a complete halt.
Drivers reported that they never applied the brake (even with hits). However, the
brakes had been applied by the technology. So when the truck made contact with the
cut-out, the system had detected it, but the late detection meant that the brakes were
applied too late to avoid impact.
EWP Truck
Speed
Attempts
Hits
2km/h
5km/h
25
25
0
3*
Avg
Stopping
Distance
1.2m
0.57m
Stopping
Percentage
100%
88%
*One hit only just made contact with the cut-out.
The results from the EWP Truck were consistent, and while there were dead spots across
the rear of the truck, these areas of weakness were not as pronounced as the Line Truck.
This could be explained by the difference in the design of the two trucks, which resulted in a
variance with regard to the effectiveness of the sensor coverage. The dead spots were
approximately 50cm to 70cm from the edge of the trucks (both sides), and the right corner
was not adequately covered due to the need for the sensor to be angle closer to the middle
of the truck.
As the above data indicates, the system performed extremely well at 2km/h. From 25
reversing attempts, on 18 occasions the measurements ranged from 1m to 1.5m, with 13 of
these being a measurement of 1.5m from truck to cut-out. On the other hand, the testing of
the dead spots resulted in data ranging from 30cm to 90cm (7 tests), which brought the
average stopping distance down. When the reversing speed was increased to 5km/h only
three hits were recorded. These hits occurred when testing the regions that were identified
as having poor sensor coverage during the 2km/h tests. As was the case with the Line truck,
the testing of these dead spots at 5km/h either resulted in contact with, or the truck only just
stopping before the cut-out. For example, on five occasions the truck stopped approx. 5cm
from the object.
Thiess Field Trials
Page 20 of 31
It is important to note the results from testing the regions that were identified as having
strong sensor coverage, resulted in extremely positive data. On six occasions the truck
stopped 1m to 1.2m from the object and on four occasions the truck stopped 75cm to 85cm
from the cut out. This data indicates that if additional sensors were utilised, the average
stopping distance at 5km/h would be significantly higher, and the system would most likely
respond favourably to speeds around 7km/h. Obviously, any speed over 7km/h is not ideal
from an operational sense however it is encouraging to see the potential of the system.
It has to be noted that after the Line Truck testing and prior to the EWP testing the SVG
technician slightly tightened the brake pedal clamp on the EWP Truck. This could explain the
difference in the data between the trucks. It was obvious that the EWP was stopping faster
than the Line truck, so to ensure that the braking was not an issue for the driver, the
manager was asked whether the braking was appropriate. He said that the brakes were
within reason.
Overall, the EWP results are encouraging given that only 4 sensors were utilised and a truck
with a GVM of 12,000kg was stopping well before the cut out.
Obvious that the EWP was stopping quicker than the Line Truck.
Dead spots were evident, but not to the extent of the Line Truck.
On the occasions that contact was made with the object the driver reported that the
brake had been applied by the technology, but too late to bring the vehicle to a
complete stop before hitting the object.
Driver Feedback
Verbal - Person C
Before the trial was finalised both drivers were interviewed in relation to their experiences
with the technology. Person C gave some feedback about the use of the override button on
the EWP truck. The driver had raised a very important issue: because the truck sometimes
has to reverse in remote locations with dense scrub, a reverse hill start holding the override
button was very difficult (manual truck). He stated that even in park mode (40cm detection),
Thiess Field Trials
Page 21 of 31
the extreme angle would still activate the braking system. Furthermore, he mentioned that
sometimes the truck must reverse long distances in remote environments with hanging
branches which could result in the system being activated. In short, the driver was indicating
that in some circumstances, especially remote environments where there is little risk to
pedestrians, the driver may need the ability to turn off the system by flicking a switch rather
than having to hold the override button for extended periods.
To date the Reverse Alert system has been utilised in the passenger vehicle market, taxi and
road transport industries, and those drivers only had to hold the override button for a
maximum of five seconds in the event that the use of park mode would not allow the driver to
reverse the vehicle past a piece of terrain. Therefore, the activities of the Thiess Energy
Division presented a new challenge. After hearing the feedback from the driver, it was
agreed that the current use of override, at least for the Thiess Energy division, needed
improving: the need for the driver to have one hand off the steering wheel to hold the
override for an extended period of time needed to be addressed immediately. As such, an
easier way to override the system on the EWP truck was introduced before the next driving
shift: a switch was installed in the cabin of the truck, so that if the driver was off road in
remote environments and needed the system off for a period of time, the driver would simply
flick the switch. When the switch was activated this disabled the solenoid and a buzzer
sounded, alerting the driver to the fact that the system was turned off. When the system was
turned back on the buzzer ceased. SVG is considering options for how this type of option
might be incorporated into future commercial versions of the product.
Person D
When Person D was interviewed in relation to his experiences, he reported that the brake
was activating too often. When he was asked in what circumstances/environments the brake
was activating, he responded that when attempting to manoeuvre in traffic to turn the truck
around the brake would activate. In this instance it was obvious that the driver was not using
the Park Mode/P Button. If the driver had pressed the park mode button, the sensor range
would be reduced to 40cm, allowing the driver to manoeuvre the truck in tight situations.
The driver also mentioned a situation where the brake was activated but there were no
objects/people in close proximity to the truck. Person D was of the belief that a pedestrian 50
metres away triggered the system, but this is impossible given the sensors have a range of
Thiess Field Trials
Page 22 of 31
1.6m. It was, however, explained to Person D that on occasions the angle/slope of the land
could have triggered the system.
Another piece of feedback from Person D was in relation to the brakes. Person D was of the
belief that they were engaged too aggressively and applied too hard. It was explained to the
driver that the brakes can be adjusted to be softer, but doing so will result in an increased
stopping distance in the event the truck needs to stop before making contact with a person or
object.
In response to Person Ds verbal feedback about the brakes being too aggressive, two
managers were asked what they thought about the braking. Both managers reported that the
brakes were fine and within reason. These managers were driving the trucks when data was
being collected, so they were experiencing continuous episodes of braking and at speeds of
approx. 5km/h.
Feedback Sheet (Likert Scale)
The written feedback from Person C was very positive. Person D on the other hand was not
supportive of the technology, but did agree that the technology made him more aware when
reversing. The feedback sheets for Person C and Person D are included in this report as
Appendix C and Appendix D.
Person C 1.6m System (Trucks)
vehicle Person C ticked Strongly Agree
I found that the brake was being applied too often Person C ticked Disagree.
use across the civil construction industry Person C ticked Agree.
Person D 1.6m System (Trucks)

vehicle Person D ticked Agree
Thiess Field Trials
Page 23 of 31
I found that the brake was being applied too often Person B ticked Strongly Agree.
use across the civil construction industry Person D ticked Strongly Disagree
Technology Inspections
The technology was inspected on two occasions during the trial to determine whether the
equipment was holding up to the demands of the industry. No problems were identified
during the trial and the system was performing as expected.
5. Summary of Results and Recommendations

5.1 Light Commercial Vehicles
Taking into consideration the data and the feedback, the technology worked very well on the
light commercial vehicles. While the data from the 2.5m system shows a significantly better
result with regard to the stopping distance between the cut-out to the vehicle, it has to be
noted that this system will detect too many objects in an urban or even a shopping centre
environment. For example, if the driver was at a shopping centre car park waiting to reverse
out of a car park, the system would detect a high number of vehicles driving past. As such,
the driver would quickly become annoyed with the system.
The purpose of the technology is to prevent incidents on a construction site from occurring,
and in that sense the 2.5m system would work. However, not all sites are like the QGC Coal
Seam Gas project with plenty of open space. Therefore, taking into consideration that the
1.6m system performed well at 7km/h, and given that the drivers' stated they would hardly
ever reverse quicker than 5km/h, it is recommended that the Light Commercial vehicles use
a system that detects at 2m. A 2m system gives a good balance between safety/prevention
and what is practical. For SVG this is just a matter of programming and not an issue to
supply industry with a system that detects at 2m.
In relation to the slight dead spot in the middle of the Ranger, this could be addressed by the
use of the larger 6/8 sensor system. The additional sensors would provide more coverage
across the rear of the vehicle. In addition, surface mounts could make the sensors easier to
install where appropriate.
Thiess Field Trials
Page 24 of 31
Having said that, the 4 sensor system would work fine, as evidenced by the feedback and
data collected throughout the trial. Even with the slight dead spot, the 4 sensor system
performed extremely well: the light vehicle reversing trials produced a success percentage of
97% (133 out 137 attempts).
Light Commercial Vehicle Recommendation

1. 2m system with 40cm park mode
2. Either 6/8 sensor system or 4 sensor system.
5.2 Trucks
The 4 sensor system that was installed on both trucks is not sufficient and does not provide
adequate coverage across the rear of the truck. However, the reversing data obtained from
the trial highlights the potential of the system in stopping trucks before they make contact
with an object.
Moreover, the feedback from both drivers indicated that the technology made them more
aware when reversing. While Person D was not supportive of the automatic braking system,
the underlying causes of the feedback may be related to the driver not being familiar with the
use of the Park Mode. On the other hand, Person C appeared satisfied with the technology,
especially when the use of Override mode was modified to take into consideration the tasks
of the EWP truck.
Overall, the truck reversing tests produced a 91.1% success rate (103 out 113 attempts).
The trial found that when testing was performed where sensor coverage was strong, there
was a significant distance between the truck and the cut out after stopping, even at 5km/h.
An encouraging result given that the 4 sensor system is not ideal for trucks. To be more
effective, it is recommended that the trucks be fitted with the 6/8 sensor system. With this
configuration the trucks could easily manage reversing speeds of 5km/h and slightly higher.
As such, the 1.6m system should be sufficient, but if industry believe that it is imperative for a
truck to be capable of stopping even if travelling in reverse at speeds of up to 7km/h, a 2m
system would be recommended.
Thiess Field Trials
Page 25 of 31
Truck Recommendation
1. 2m system with 40cm park mode
2. 6/8 sensor system
6. Future Reverse Alert Designs and Developments

6/8 Sensor System
The research and development for the 6/8 sensor system will be finalised in mid-October
2013. This system will be predominantly for trucks, but can also be applied to light
commercial vehicles. The additional sensors provide for additional flexibility during
installation to ensure the rear of the vehicle receives adequate coverage across its entirety.
Surface Mounts
The surface mounts will be ready in late October 2013 and will be available for use in some
installations in place of the drop down bars. These specially designed mounts can make the
installation process quicker and easier, and the sensors less conspicuous. The surface
mounts also offer an increased level of flexibility, allowing greater coverage across the rear
of the vehicle.
Surface Mount that can be used in place of the Drop Bars for some installs.
Thiess Field Trials
Page 26 of 31
Override Mode
Due to the feedback from Person C in relation to the operations requirements of the EWP,
SVG will be looking at options for redesigning the Override mode for future commercial
versions of the product.
Data Logger
In the event that a reversing incident does occur, the supervisor can see whether the system
was in override. The existence of the data logger will help ensure that drivers are not
continuously overriding the system. The data logger will be introduced in December 2013.
Trailers
A proto-type system for trailers has been developed and is in the process of being trialled.
This system will see sensors being installed to the rear of the trailer and when the vehicle is
connected to the trailer, the sensors on the vehicle are disabled and the sensors on the
trailer are activated. This system will be available in late 2013/early 2014.
Tip Trucks
Given the success of the Hino Trucks trials, SVG will commence a trial on a 10-12 tonne
tipper in late October 2013. Field observations of various tippers in action have produced a
number of ideas in relation to installation best practice. Now that the technology has been
proven to be effective on the Hino trucks, any other applications on trucks is just a matter of
determining where the sensors need to be placed to ensure adequate coverage.
Hydrostatic Braking
In late 2012, SVG installed a version of the Reverse Alert system to a skid steer loader that
utilised hydrostatic braking systems. As the loader does not have a traditional braking
system, a universal brake pedal clamp cannot be used in this instance. Another method to
stop the bobcat was designed which still involved the use of sensors on the rear of the
bobcat. Video footage of the bobcat was sent to various people in the civil construction
industry, generating numerous requests for SVG to design something for loaders and other
items of plant. While the front end loader design only took one week to get to proof-ofconcept stage, more research needs to be undertaken before such technology is trialled on a
larger scale. In mid to late 2014 SVG plans to be able to commit resources to resume work
on the hydrostatic version of the Reverse Alert system.
Thiess Field Trials
Page 27 of 31
Appendix A Person A Feedback Sheet (Light Commercial)
Thiess Field Trials
Page 28 of 31
Appendix B Person B Feedback Sheet (Light Commercial)
Thiess Field Trials
Page 29 of 31
Appendix C Person C Feedback Sheet (Trucks)
Thiess Field Trials
Page 30 of 31
Appendix D Person D Feedback Sheet (Trucks)
Thiess Field Trials
Page 31 of 31

Automatic Breaking System

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Automatic Breaking System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thiess Field Trials

Reverse Alert Technology

Automatic Braking System

Thiess Field Trials

Two Ford Ranger Light Commercial Vehicles (1 x 1.6m and 1 x 2.5m

Thiess Field Trials

Thiess Field Trials

From a risk management perspective, the reversing data/attempts could be

Issues which were identified during the trial included:

Thiess Field Trials

Thiess Field Trials

Thiess Field Trials

2.1 Reverse Alert Technology

Thiess Field Trials

The technology has four unique features:

Thiess Field Trials

Park mode and override buttons

Clamp attached to Hino brake pedal

Reverse Alert R&D

Thiess Field Trials

Thiess Field Trials

Drop bar with sensors

Sensor positioning Ford Ranger

Thiess Field Trials

EWP Truck sensor positioning

Line Truck sensor positioning

Thiess Field Trials

Difference between Ranger and Hino Installation

3.2 Trial Period

3.3 Trial Objectives

Thiess Field Trials

4.2 Light Commercial Vehicles

Thiess Field Trials

Observations and Interactions

Stopping distances on cement (workshop) the Ranger would pull up nearly

Thiess Field Trials

Observations and Interactions

Below Images: Testing of the 2.5m system

Thiess Field Trials

Feedback Sheet (Likert Scale)

Thiess Field Trials

Person B 2.5m System

4.3 Hino Trucks

Cut-out used in the truck testing

Thiess Field Trials

Line Truck Data

Thiess Field Trials

Observations and Interactions

Notable dead spots when using only 4 sensors on a truck.

Obvious delay with the line truck coming to a complete halt.

*One hit only just made contact with the cut-out.

Thiess Field Trials

Observations and Interactions

Thiess Field Trials

Thiess Field Trials

Person D 1.6m System (Trucks)

Thiess Field Trials

5. Summary of Results and Recommendations

Thiess Field Trials

Light Commercial Vehicle Recommendation

Thiess Field Trials

6. Future Reverse Alert Designs and Developments

Thiess Field Trials