Safety in Mines Research Advisory Committee

Final Project Report

BRAKE TESTING OF TRACKLESS MOBILE

MINING MACHINERY
(Phase 2 of project to SIM 040502)

RW Ottermann
NDL Burger
AJ von Wielligh

Research Agency BE@UP, University of Pretoria

Project number SIM 04-05-02 Phase 2
Date of report February 2006
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The aim of this project is to develop an in-service brake testing specification

for trackless mobile mining machinery of less than 50 ton. The primary output
of this project is an in-service brake testing specification for trackless mobile
mining machinery to be used as a maintenance tool/aid. Mines with trackless
mobile mining machinery will use this specification for the testing and in-
service verification of brakes as an input to maintenance to minimize the risk
of brake system related accidents, preventing runaways of vehicles, thereby
saving lives.

The proposed brake test specification developed during phase 1 of the project
was amended to include recommendations of a workshop attended by
interested parties from mining houses, Original Equipment Manufacturers
(OEM’s), the DME and SIMRAC. The test specifications as well as the
electronic brake testing equipment were evaluated during tests done at the
Gerotek test track. The brakes of five different size vehicles with different
braking systems were tested with all the available electronic brake testing
equipment and evaluated against the SABS 1589:1994 specification. A risk
assessment was done on the Simret 3000 electronic brake tester.

The brake test specification was then implemented at Leeupan Collieries,

Kumba. Personnel responsible .for the testing were trained in the test
procedure as well as the use of the electronic test equipment. The mine was
visited on a regular basis to evaluate the tests. Tests were also done at
Kromdraai Colliery.

The implementation and evaluation of the test specification on the mines

provided valuable information on the use of the brake specification. The
following is recommended on the use and application of in-service brake
testing:

• The in-service brake test specification developed can provide

meaningful input for maintenance requirements on vehicle brake
systems.
• The information gathered during this project can be used as input
during the development of a national standard for the testing of brakes
of Trackless Mobile Mining Machinery by the SABS.
• The standard should address the accuracy and repeatability
requirements of the brake testing instrument to be used.
• Tests have shown that the test specification is applicable for
hydrostatic as well as mechanical drive vehicles.
• Test personnel need to be properly trained in the test procedure and
the use of the test equipment.

2
• Systems need to be put in place to ensure that tests are done at
prescribed intervals.
• Proper records of tests need to be maintained. Tracking software can
be useful to keep track of the brake performance and indicate
maintenance requirements.

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Safety in Mines Research
Advisory Committee (SIMRAC) for financial support of project SIM 040502 and
also for the interest and technical input of the SIMRAC Technical Committee.
The team would also like to thank the personnel of Leeupan Colleries and
Turnkey Instruments for their assistance during the evaluation of the brake test
specification.

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 8
1.1 NEW SOUTH WALES: GUIDELINE ON BRAKING SYSTEMS ...............................8
2 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 10

3 EVALUATION OF BRAKE TEST EQUIPMENT........................................... 11

3.1 GEROTEK TESTS..................................................................................11
3.2 TEST RESULTS .......................................................................................13
3.3 SABS EVALUATION OF ELECTRONIC BRAKE TEST EQUIPMENT .....................14
3.4 RISK ASSESSMENT OF AN ELECTRONIC BRAKE TEST EQUIPMENT .................15
3.5 EVALUATION OF TESTS ............................................................................15
3.6 CONCLUSION OF EVALUATION ..................................................................15
4 BRAKE TEST SPECIFICATION .................................................................. 16

5 IMPLEMENTATION OF BRAKE TEST SPECIFICATION ON MINE ........... 20

5.1 LEEUPAN COLLIERY BRAKE TESTING EVALUATION ......................................20
5.2 KROMDRAAI BRAKE TESTS .......................................................................20
5.3 TRACKING SOFTWARE .............................................................................23
5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................23
6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................... 25

7 REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 27
APPENDIX A.............................................................................................................29
APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................32
APPENDIX C:............................................................................................................53
APPENDIX D:............................................................................................................58
APPENDIX E: ............................................................................................................64
APPENDIX F: ............................................................................................................67

5
TABLE OF FIGURES PAGES

Figure 3-1: Electronic brake test equipment fitted in a Toro 400 vehicle during the
tests. ................................................................................................12
Figure 3-2: Photo of a vehicle during the tests on gravel surface .......................12
Figure 3-3: Graphical presentation of brake efficiency measured with different
measuring equipment on concrete (Series 1) and gravel surfaces
(Series 2) .........................................................................................14
Figure 5-1: Brake efficiencies measured on a vehicle during a number of brake
tests. ................................................................................................22
Figure 5-2: Graph of different tests done at different times on the same vehicle
produced by Simret software ...........................................................23

6
List of Tables Page

Table 3-1 Brake efficiency results for brake tests on concrete and gravel surfaces
for the Toro 400 .................................................................................13
Table 4-1 Proposed in-service brake testing specification ..................................16
Table 4-2 Recommended information to be recorded on test sheet ...................19
Table 5-1 Brake efficiencies measured on a vehicle during a number of brake
tests ...................................................................................................21
Table 5-2 Brake efficiencies of different vehicles measured before and after
maintenance ......................................................................................22

7
1 INTRODUCTION
Most accidents due to brake failure can be attributed to an inadequate brake
system on the vehicle, inadequate maintenance or overloading of the brake
system when driving downhill or downdip at too high a speed or gear. To reduce
these accidents vehicles have to be fitted with brake systems that can handle the
operational requirements and have efficient maintenance with in-service testing
of the brake system. No definitive procedure and supporting equipment exist in
the South African mining industry to evaluate the efficiency of in-service braking
systems on trackless mobile mining machinery.

The different levels of brake testing that exist are daily checks by the operator,
intermediate tests and system verification testing. The intermediate testing is the
in-service verification of the brakes as an input to maintenance. This project
focuses on the intermediate tests that are performed at regular intervals.

During phase 1 of the project the status of brake testing of trackless mobile
mining machinery in the platinum, iron ore and coal sectors was established by
visiting different mines. An investigation into what exists worldwide was done
focusing on brake test specifications as well as in-service verification of brakes.
From the investigation, electronic brake testing equipment was recommended for
the in-service testing of brakes. Different electronic brake testing equipment was
evaluated on different vehicles to determine the usefulness of this type of
equipment. A draft brake testing specification for trackless mobile mining
machinery was compiled. At a workshop attended by interested parties from
mining houses, original equipment manufacturers (OEM’s), DME and SIMRAC
the findings of the project were presented. The workshop accepted the proposed
draft brake test specification with some minor modifications.

This is the final report on phase 2 of project SIM 040502 on brake testing of
trackless mobile mining machinery.

1.1 New South Wales: Guideline on braking systems

The New South Wales guideline on braking systems gives useful guidelines
on brake testing and the equipment used for brake testing. The guideline
specifies the requirements for the design, installation, testing and
maintenance of braking systems fitted to free-steered vehicles in
underground coalmines. This guideline is intended for manufacturers,
service/maintenance organisations, users and regulatory authorities
concerned with the safety of free-steered vehicles when operated in

8
underground coalmines. The guidelines distinguish between routine testing
and in-service testing.

For in-service testing the guidelines list the following information to be

recorded:
(i) The speed immediately prior to the application of the brakes (km/h)
(ii) The mean deceleration rate (m/s2)
(iii) The response time between the application of the brakes and the
beginning of retardation. The beginning of retardation is considered to
be 10% of g.
(iv) The operating force applied to the pedal/button/lever by the operator.

Any brake testing instrument to be employed has to demonstrate

compliance with the guideline and shall be calibrated accordingly:

Accuracy ± 1.5% g
Repeatability ± 2.0% g
Range 0 - 140% g (g = 9.81 m/s2)
Pedal force transducer 0 - 2000 N
Calibration ± 0.1% g

9
2 METHODOLOGY
The following methodology was followed during this project:
• The parameters for the brake test specification were determined and
evaluated during brake tests on different vehicles. These tests were
done on the GEROTEK test track. The tests were done on different
size vehicles and brake systems. Both hydrostatic drive and
mechanical drive vehicles were tested. During the tests the brake
efficiency was also artificially reduced.
• A risk assessment was done on one electronic brake test instrument.
• The draft brake test specification was updated.
• All the available electronic brake test equipment was evaluated
simultaneously to determine accuracy and repeatability of the
equipment.
• The brake test specification was implemented at Leeupan Colliery of
Kumba. Personnel were trained and the tests were monitored.
• The brake testing specification for trackless mobile mining machinery
was evaluated to determine the usability and limitations of the
specifications.
• The final project report was compiled.

10
3 EVALUATION OF BRAKE TEST EQUIPMENT

The evaluation of available electronic brake test equipment was done at

GEROTEK test track. The equipment as well as the draft brake test specification
was evaluated.

3.1 GEROTEK tests

A test specification was compiled for the brake tests at GEROTEK to evaluate
the proposed brake testing specification and different electronic brake test
equipment. The test specification is attached as Appendix A. These tests were
done during the week of 13 June 2005.

The vehicles used during these tests were selected to represent different size
vehicles and different braking systems. Both hydrostatic and mechanical drive
vehicles were tested. The following five vehicles were tested at GEROTEK:
• Utility vehicle – Toyota Landcruiser with NCS Engineering hydraulic
brakes
• LHD with mechanical wet brakes – Toro 400
• LHD with hydrostatic brakes – EJC XLP 88
• 30 ton dump truck – Bell Equipment
• 10 ton Flat bed truck – Mercedes Benz

The tests were done on concrete and gravel surfaces and with standard and
deliberately reduced brakes.

All the available electronic brake testing equipment was evaluated

simultaneously against the SABS 1589:1994 specification:
• TKI SIMRET 3000
• Bowmonk
• Brake check
• Autotest
• TKI Brakesafe

Figure 3.1 shows a photo of the electronic test equipment fitted on a vehicle
during the tests and figure 3.2 shows a photo of a vehicle during a test.

11
Figure 3-1: Electronic brake test equipment fitted in a Toro 400 vehicle during the
tests.

Figure 3-2: Photo of a vehicle during the tests on gravel surface

During the tests the speed, stopping distance, average deceleration and reaction
time of system was measured and the brake efficiency calculated according to
the SABS 1589:1994 specification. The tests were done by NAL. These results
were then compared with the results of the electronic brake testing equipment.
Each test was repeated a minimum of three times.

12
The tests were done at different speeds, on concrete and on gravel surfaces and
with artificially reduced brake efficiencies.

3.2 Test results

The measurements of the brake tests done at GEROTEK were processed and a
summary of these results is attached as Appendix B. An example of the results
is shown in table 3.1 where the brake efficiencies of the Troro 400 on concrete
and gravel surfaces are shown. Figure 3.3 graphically shows these test results.

Table 3-1 Brake efficiency results for brake tests on concrete and gravel surfaces
for the Toro 400
Equipment % g (average) % g (average)
cement gravel

Bowmonk 45% 45%

TKI Simret 36% 38%

TKI Brakesafe 46% 47%

Brake check 47% 46%

Autotest 52% 53%

SABS (NAL) 42% 43%

13
 Comparison between different measuring techniques -
Toro 400 concrete and gravel - average values

60%

50%

40%

Brake efficiency 30%

20%
Series1
10% Series2

0%
Bowmonk S2

TKI Simret
S1

TKI Brakesafe

Brake check

Autotest

NAL
TKI Brake
Bowmonk TKI Simret Autotest NAL
Brakesafe check
Series1 45% 36% 46% 47% 52% 42%
Series2 45% 38% 47% 46% 53% 43%

Figure 3-3: Graphical presentation of brake efficiency measured with different

measuring equipment on concrete (Series 1) and gravel surfaces (Series 2)

3.3 SABS evaluation of electronic brake test equipment

The accuracy of the Simret 3000 electronic brake testing equipment was
previously tested by the SABS. The Pielser 5th wheel model PW-106 with an
measured accuracy of 0,26% was used to test the accuracy of the Simret 3000.
The SABS tests established that the inaccuracy of the Simret brake tester was
less than 2% for speed, 3% for time to stop, 4% for stopping distance and 10%
for deceleration. The test report of the SABS, report No. 825/86128/J0184, is
attached as Appendix C.

14
3.4 Risk assessment of an electronic brake test equipment
A risk assessment was done on the SIMRET 3000 electronic brake tester. The
risk assessment shows that the risk of using the equipment is low provided that it
is used correctly. By proper training of the test personnel and making sure that
the instrument is used correctly this risk can minimised. The incorrect use of the
instrument should result in a lower brake efficiency measurement and thus erring
on the safe side. The risk assessment is attached as Appendix D.

3.5 Evaluation of tests

The evaluation of the test results showed the following:
• The processed data shows that the brake test identifies reduction in
brake efficiencies.
• The tests show the same accuracy of the electronic brake test
equipment as was demonstrated during the SABS evaluation. See
paragraph 3.3.
• Reasonable repeatability was demonstrated by the tests.
• Tests on gravel and concrete surfaces showed comparable results
provided the wheels of the vehicle do not lock.
• The speed of the vehicle at which the test is done does not influence the
results of the brake efficiency provided that the speed is high enough
that enough sampling time is available during the test. A minimum
speed of 15 to 20 km/h is recommended.
• An empty vehicle can be used provided the wheels of the vehicle do not
skid and the vehicle does not “hop”.
• The test can also be used on hydrostatic drive vehicles. During the
tests a test on the hydrostatic drive vehicle showed that the braking
efficiency was insufficient. On investigation it was found that a valve
was incorrectly set. After correcting the setting the brake efficiency
improved dramatically.

3.6 Conclusion of evaluation

The evaluation of the electronic brake test equipment and in service brake testing
specification showed that the specification can successfully be used to indicate
brake deficiencies and or deterioration of the brakes. The test results of a
particular vehicle should be trended to indicate deterioration of the brakes and
the necessity of maintenance of the braking system.

In order to be able to compare / trend results the tests should be done on the
same road surface. Tests can be done on gravel surface provided the wheels of
the vehicle do not lock. It is however recommended that the tests be done on
hard surfaces.

15
4 BRAKE TEST SPECIFICATION

The draft specification making use of electronic brake testing equipment as

proposed in the phase 1 of the project was amended taking the results of the
evaluations into account. Table 4.1 shows the draft specification and table 4-2
lists the recommended information to be recorded on the test sheet.
Table 4-1 Proposed in-service brake testing specification

PROPOSAL FOR BRAKE TESTING OF RUBBER TYRED MINE VEHICLES

PURPOSE
To ensure that the braking effort of a vehicle is adequate for the safe and
efficient operation of the vehicle.

SCOPE
Applicable to all rubber tyre vehicles (mechanical and hydrostatic drive), but
excluding motorcycles and builder’s dumpers.

REFERENCES
1. ISO 3450:1985
2. SABS 1589:1994

EQUIPMENT USED
Dynamic brake testing equipment i.e.: Simret or equivalent.

RESPONSIBILITY
Workshop foreman
Diesel Mechanic

METHOD
1. Service brakes (Static testing) – all vehicles
Note: Ensure that the total drive train of the vehicle is to standard and
properly functional before continuing with the brake test

Vehicles with mechanical drive systems. The Operator/driver of the

vehicle will:
1.1 On a flat surface, start the engine and let the air or hydraulic
pressure and temperature build up to the operating conditions
as recommended by OEM. This must occur within the

16
 recommended period of time as recommended by OEM.
1.2 Release the emergency and park brakes.
1.3 Select the neutral position in the transmission.
1.4 Fully apply the service brake.
1.5 Select a gear recommended by the OEM.
1.6 Increase the engine speed to recommended revolutions per
minute. The vehicle must not move.
1.7 Do not use the vehicle if it moves, but report to his supervisor or
to the relevant workshop.

Vehicles with Hydrostatic drive systems: Test according to

recommendations of original vehicle manufacturer.

2. Emergency brake (Static testing) – all vehicles

Vehicles with mechanical drive systems. The operator/driver of the
vehicle will on a flat surface:
2.1 Start the engine,
2.2 Select the neutral position in the transmission, and
2.3 Let the air/hydraulic pressure build up to operating pressure as
recommended by OEM. This must happen in the recommended
period of time. as recommended by OEM
2.4 Select a gear as recommended by OEM
2.5 Increase the engine speed to maximum working revolutions per
minute.
2.6 Apply the emergency brake. The machine must not move.
2.7 Do not use the machine if it moves, but report to the relevant
workshop.

Vehicles with Hydrostatic drive systems: Test according to

recommendations of original vehicle manufacturer.

NB: The sequence of the test may vary depending on the type of
equipment.

3. Dynamic test using Simret Tester or similar – Service brakes and park
brakes
3.1 Artisan or designated test person will conduct all dynamic brake
tests.
3.2 Dynamic brake tests will be carried out at a specified interval like
on a weekly basis; on each service (excluding daily services)
and after any intervention, repairs or adjustments have been
carried out on braking systems. As per the code of practice of
the mine.
3.3 The brakes will be tested as detailed in section 1 of this work
instruction before carrying out the dynamic test.

17
 3.4 Dynamic tests will be carried out on a dry surface, with an empty
vehicle. Make sure that the testing surface will remain
approximately constant over a period of time
3.5 Set up the tester as detailed in the manual.
3.6 Accelerate the machine to a speed as specified in SABS 1589
or the highest speed possible if the speed cannot be achieved
and apply the service brakes. In determining the required speed
the test procedure of the instrument used and the maximum
recommended speed of the vehicle manufacturer should be
taken into account (A speed of 15 to 20 km/h should be
sufficient). Do the test according to the test procedure of the
brake test instrument.
3.7 Allow the instrument to calculate the braking effort.
3.8 Compare the brake efficiency with the new brake value (blue
printed value) for the specific vehicle. If the brake efficiency is
below the required standard the brakes have to be inspected
and repaired.
3.9 All brake tests must be recorded and trended to detect
degradation in the brake system.

Minimum required brake performance for rubber-tyred machines

(Derived from ISO 3450:1996)

Vehicle category Brake

efficiency (%)
Vehicles capable of exceeding speed of 35 km/h 45
Vehicles not capable of exceeding speed of 35 20
km/h
Vehicles not traveling on public roads with a mass 28
less that 32 000 kg
Vehicles not traveling on public roads with a 18
mass greater that 32 000 kg

The electronic brake test instruments have to read g(acceleration) for it to give
a speed reading before the application of the brakes. If the machine travels at
a constant speed there is no g reading and the instrument goes into ERROR.
The service brakes have to be applied while it is still acceleration (g reading
active).

18
Table 4-2 Recommended information to be recorded on test sheet
INFORMATION TO BE RECORDED ON TEST SHEET:
1. Vehicle type
2. Vehicle registration
3. Date
4. km reading
5. Engine hour reading
6. Type of braking system
7. Test equipment
8. Service brake static test: Yes/No
9. Park brake static test: Yes/No
10. Service brake dynamic test:
Reaction time
Brake efficiency / mean deceleration rate
11. Name of test official

19
5 IMPLEMENTATION OF BRAKE TEST
SPECIFICATION ON MINE

5.1 Leeupan Colliery brake testing evaluation

The brake test specification was evaluated at Leeupan colliery of Kumba. The
Simret 3000 brake tester was used for the tests. Workshop personnel of
Leeupan were trained in the use of the Simret instrument by Turnkey Instruments
the marketing company of the Simret brake testing equipment. The evaluation
was done from September 2005 to February 2006. Leeupan was visited on a
regular basis to monitor the testing. The results of the Leeupan Colliery tests are
attached in Appendix E.

During this evaluation valuable information regarding the use of brake testing
was gathered. The following problems were encountered:
• Although personnel committed themselves to the testing, testing was not
done according to the prescribed schedule.
• Untrained personnel were given the task of testing with the consequence
of incorrect test procedure being followed. The brakes were applied
gradually with resulting low brake efficiencies.
• Recordkeeping was not according to the agreed upon standard.

5.2 Kromdraai brake tests

The Simret 3000 brake tester was also used for brake testing at Kromdraai
Colliery. The brake testing was only done by properly trained people. Results of
these tests are attached as Appendix F. Table 5.1 and figure 5.1 shows the
brake efficiencies of a vehicle over a number of tests. Tests number 8, 11 and
15 show a too low brake efficiency, which triggered maintenance of the brakes
and test number 9, 10 and 16 show the brake efficiency after the maintenance.

20
Table 5-1 Brake efficiencies measured on a vehicle during a number of brake
tests
KTK
Test Nr Date 124
1 16/07/2001 24
2 20/08/2001 28.4
3 17/09/2001 29.1
4 22/11/2001 33.2
5 23/01/2002 36.8
6 01/03/2002 31.6
7 17/04/2002 28.8
8 28/05/2002 19.7
9 20/06/2002 35
10 23/07/2002 28.9
11 22/08/2002 18.1
12 22/08/2002 29
13 19/09/2002 28.7
14 16/10/2002 27.5
15 12/12/2002 23.4
16 12/12/2002 31.7

21
 BrakeTest 'Vehicle:KTK 124'

40
35
30
25
Fail
%g 20
15
10
5
0
01

01

02

02

02

02

02

02
20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
7/

9/

1/

4/

6/

8/

9/

2/
/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/1
16

17

23

17

20

22

19

12
Date

Figure 5-1: Brake efficiencies measured on a vehicle during a number of brake

tests.

During these tests the brakes of vehicles that had insufficient brake efficiencies
were repaired. The brakes were then retested after the maintenance was done.
Table 5.2 summarises the brake efficiencies of different vehicles that triggered
the maintenance and the brake efficiencies after the maintenance was done. A
copy of the test recordings before and after the maintenance is attached in
Appendix F.

Table 5-2 Brake efficiencies of different vehicles measured before and after
maintenance
.
KTK KHF KDT KDT KDT KMG
Vehicle Registration nr. 124 001 001 002 003 004
Efficiencies before maintenance. 19.7 13.4 20 21.7 22.5 20

Efficiencies after maintenance. 35 29.5 27.7 33 32.5 30

22
5.3 Tracking software
Proper records of tests need to be maintained. For this tracking software can be
useful to keep track of the brake performance and indicate maintenance
requirements. The available tracking software for the electronic testing
equipment was evaluated. Figure 5.2 shows a graph of different tests done at
different times on the same vehicle produced by Simret software. The software
available can be used as a database to store test data and reproduce graphs. It
however does not have a feature where it flags a vehicle if the brake efficiency is
insufficient.

Figure 5-2: Graph of different tests done at different times on the same vehicle
produced by Simret software
It is recommended that software be developed or improved to not only store the
test data but also automatically flag a vehicle with insufficient brake performance.

5.4 Recommendations
If in-service brake testing is to be meaningful and achieve its purpose of initiating
maintenance of brakes and thus preventing brake failures it is important that:

23
• Test personnel are properly trained in the test procedure and the use of
the test equipment.
• Properly apply the brakes when the test is conducted.
• Make sure that tests are done according to the prescribed schedule.
• Maintain proper records of test.
• Tracking software should be used to keep track of the brake performance
and warn of maintenance requirements.
• It is recommended that in-service brake testing be included in the code of
conduct of a mine.

24
6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

An in-service brake testing specification for trackless mobile mining machinery

was developed further during this phase of the project. Mines with trackless
mobile mining machinery will use this specification for the testing and in-service
verification of brakes as an input for maintenance to minimize the risk of brake
system related accidents, preventing runaways of vehicles and thereby saving
lives.

The proposed brake test specification developed during phase 1 of the project
was amended to include recommendations of a workshop attended by interested
parties from mining houses, Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM’s), the
DME and SIMRAC. The test specifications as well as the electronic brake testing
equipment were evaluated during tests done at the Gerotek test track. The
brakes of five different size vehicles with different braking systems were tested
with all the available electronic brake testing equipment and evaluated against
the SABS 1589:1994 specification. A risk assessment was done on the Simret
3000 electronic brake tester.

The brake test specification was then implemented at Leeupan Collieries,

Kumba. Personnel responsible for the testing were trained in the test procedure
as well as the use of the electronic test equipment. The mine was visited on a
regular basis to evaluate the tests. Tests were also done at Kromdraai Colliery.

The implementation and evaluation of the test specification on the mines

provided valuable information on the use of the brake specification. The
following is recommended on the use and application of in-service brake testing:

• The in-service brake test specification developed can provide meaningful

input for maintenance requirements on vehicle brake systems. It is
recommended that in-service brake testing be included in the code of
conduct of a mine.
• The information gathered during this project can be used as input during
the development of a national standard for the testing of brakes of
Trackless Mobile Mining Machinery by the SABS. A working group for
SANS 2589 has already begun working on a standard.
• The standard should address the accuracy and repeatability requirements
of the brake testing instrument to be used.
• Tests have shown that the test specification is applicable for hydrostatic as
well as mechanical drive vehicles.
• Test personnel need to be properly trained in the test procedure and the
use of the test equipment.

25
• Systems need to be put in place to ensure that tests are done at
prescribed intervals.
• Proper records of tests need to be maintained. Tracking software can be
useful to keep track of the brake performance and indicate maintenance
requirements.

26
7 REFERENCES
Van den Ordel W (2004): Braking systems used within trackless mining. Anglo
Platinum, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2004.
ISO 3450: 1996 - Earth moving machinery – Braking systems of rubber-tired
machines – Systems and performance requirements and test procedures,
International Organisation for Standardisation, Third Edition, 1996-04-01
ISO 10265: 1998 - Earth-moving machinery – Crawler machines – Performance
requirements and test procedures for braking systems, International Organisation
for Standardisation, First Edition, 1998-05-01
SAE J1329 – Minimum performance criteria for braking systems for specialized
rubber-tired, self-propelled underground mining machines, Society of Automotive
Engineers, Issued 1989-07, Cancelled 2002-02
SAE J1247 – Simulated mountain-brake performance test procedure, Society of
Automotive Engineers, Issued 1980-04, Revised 2002-08
SAE J1977 – Braking performance – Rubber-tired, self-propelled cranes, Society
of Automotive Engineers, Issued 1997-04
I.S. EN 1889-1:2003 – Machines for underground mines – Mobile machines
working underground – Safety – Part 1: Rubber tired vehicles, National
Standards Authority of Ireland, June 2003
I.S. EN 474-1: 1994/A1:1998 – Earth-moving machinery – Safety – Part 1:
General requirements, National Standards Authority of Ireland, February 1995
and amended in May 1998
I.S. EN 474-3: 1996 – Earth-moving machinery – Safety – Part 3: Requirements
for loaders, National Standards Authority of Ireland, February 1996
I.S. EN 474-6: 1997 – Earth-moving machinery – Safety – Part 6: Requirements
for dumpers, National Standards Authority of Ireland, June 1996
I.S. EN 791: 1996 – Drill rigs – Safety, National Standards Authority of Ireland,
November 1995
ISO 6292: 1996 – Powered industrial trucks and tractors – Brake performance
and component strength, International Organisation for Standardisation, First
Edition, 1996-12-15
SAE J1178 JUN 1987 – Braking performance – Rubber tired skidders, Society of
Automotive Engineers, Issued March 1977, Revised June 87, Cancelled
February 1999
SAE J1250 DEC 1987 – In-service brake performance test procedure – Vehicles
over 4500kg (10 000 lb), Society of Automotive Engineers, Issued February
1980, Revised December 87, Cancelled September 2000

27
Thomas D.R., September 1978., SAE Paper 780777 – Brake testing and lining
evaluation of large off-highway mining trucks, Society of Automotive Engineers,
Dawson V.E.,April 1975 SAE Paper 750560 – Observations concerning on-site
brake testing of large mining trucks in British Columbia, Society of Automotive
Engineers,
Guideline for the design, approval and maintenance of braking systems on free-
steered vehicles in underground coal mines, MDG No. **, Department of Mineral
Resources, New South Wales.
Ottermann R.W., Burger N.D.L., von Wielligh A.J., January 2005 SIMRAC
report – Brake testing of trackless mobile mining machinery, SIM 04 05 02.

28
 APPENDIX A

GEROTEK TEST PROGRAM

29
GEROTEK Test program:

1. Aim of tests:
a. Evaluate accuracy, repeatability and limitations of electronic brake
test equipment. Evaluate against SABS 1589 and New South
Wales (for hydrostatic drive vehicles) test specifications.
b. Determine brake efficiency reduction limits for proposed
specification.
c. Determine the effectiveness of the software of the electronic brake
testing equipment to trend data.
d. Determine if adequate measurements can be taken with an empty
vehicle.
e. Determine the effect of decline / incline test surface.

Test site: GEROTEK test facility.

Road surfaces: Tar ( = 0.8)

Gravel ( = 0.3)

Electronic brake test equipment with software: SIMRET

Bowmonk (Wabco)
AutoStop (Brakecore)

Vehicles and vehicle configurations:

1. Light utility vehicle – without load
2. Light utility vehicle – with load
3. LHD (mechanical brake)
4. LHD (hydrostatic drive)
5. Utility vehicle (10 ton) – without load
6. Utility vehicle (10 ton) – with load
7. Dump truck – without load (Size to be determined with OEM)
8. Dump truck – with load

Measurements:
SABS 1589:
1. Speed
2. Stopping distance
3. Average Deceleration
4. Reaction time of system
(Use New South Wales test specification for Hydrostatic drive vehicle).
Electronic brake test equipment (all equipment simultaneously):
1. Brake efficiency
2. Speed
3. Average deceleration
4. Stopping distance

30
TESTS:
(Repeat each test a minimum of 3 times.)
1. Test brakes against SABS 1589 specification and electronic brake testing
equipment on tar road.
2. Test brakes against SABS 1589 specification and electronic brake testing
equipment on gravel road.
3. Artificially reduce brake performance and test brakes on tar road.
4. Repeat 3 - until vehicle fails brake test.
5. Repeat 1 to 4 for all vehicles and vehicle configurations
6. Artificially reduce brake performance and test brakes on gravel road.
7. Repeat 6 - until vehicle fails brake test.
8. Repeat 6 and 7 for 2 vehicle configurations.
9. Artificially heat up brake for 2 vehicle configurations and determine
influence.
10. Test brakes of 2 vehicle configurations against SABS 1589 specification
and electronic brake testing equipment on an incline tar road.

31
 APPENDIX B

GEROTEK TEST RESULTS

32
 Toro 400
Comparison between different measuring techniques -
Toro 400 concrete and gravel - average values

60%

50%

40%

Brake efficiency 30%

20%
Series1
10% Series2

0%
S2
Bowmonk

TKI Simret

TKI Brakesafe S1

Brake check

Autotest

NAL
TKI Brake
Bowmonk TKI Simret Autotest NAL
Brakesafe check
Series1 45% 36% 46% 47% 52% 42%
Series2 45% 38% 47% 46% 53% 43%

Comparison of different measuring equipment against each other

for machine travelling at 15 km/h on concrete

33
Comparison between measured
data and compared to NAL
Autotest

60%
50%
40%
Brake efficiency 30%
20%
10%
0% NAL
1 Measured Data
2 3
Measured Data NAL 4
Runs

1 2 3 4
Measured Data 55% 50% 50% 54%
NAL 44% 38% 46%

Autotest

34
 Brakecheck

50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
Brake efficiency 25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% NAL
1 Measured data
2 3
Measured data NAL 4
Runs

1 2 3 4
Measured data 49% 48% 46% 46%
NAL 44% 38% 46%

Brakecheck

35
 TKI Brakesfae

50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
Brake efficiency 25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% NAL
1 Measured Data
2 3 4
Measured Data NAL Runs

1 2 3 4
Measured Data 47% 46% 47% 45%
NAL 44% 38% 46%

TKI Brakesafe

36
 TKI Simret

50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
Brake efficiency 25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% NAL
1 Measured data
2 3 4
Runs

1 2 3 4
Measured data 36% 39% 37% 34%
NAL 44% 38% 46%

Measured data NAL

TKI Simret

37
 Bowmonk

50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
Brake efficiency 25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% NAL
1 Measured data
2 3 4
Measured data NAL Runs

1 2 3 4
Measured data 50% 43% 42% 45%
NAL 44% 38% 46%

Bowmonk

38
Brake system efficiency at various
braking efforts – 15 km/h
Brake efficiency at various braking effort

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 100% Braking effort

75% Braking effort
Bowmonk

TKI Simret

50% Braking effort

TKI Brakesafe

Brake check

Autotest

NAL

TKI Brake
Bowmonk TKI Simret Autotest NAL
Brakesafe check
50% Braking effort 31% 23% 25% 21% 30% 27.1%
75% Braking effort 36% 30% 37% 39% 40% 37.4%
100% Braking effort 45% 36% 46% 47% 52% 42%

39
Test
no. Vehicle Brake Surface Speed Brake efficiency % % Deveation from NAL Brake efficiency
km/h NAL Verw.( Run ) Autotest Brakecheck TKI Brakesafe TKI Simret Bowmonk NAL Autotest Brakecheck TKI Brakesafe TKI Simret Bowmonk

1 Toro 400 100% pressure Cement 6.9 18.3% 1 55% 49% 47% 36% 50% 0 200.5 167.8 156.8 96.7 173.2
Toro 400 100% pressure Cement 8.2 29.0% 2 50% 48% 46% 39% 43% 0 72.4 65.5 58.6 34.5 48.3
Toro 400 100% pressure Cement 9.2 23.1% 3 50% 46% 47% 37% 42% 0 116.5 99.1 103.5 60.2 81.8
Toro 400 100% pressure Cement None 4 54% 46% 45% 34% 45%

Toro 400 100% pressure Gravel 9 19.8% 11 54% 46% 47% 38% 46% 0 172.7 132.3 137.4 91.9 132.3
Toro 400 100% pressure Gravel 8.8 20.1% 12 52% 46% 48% 37% 45% 0 158.7 128.9 138.8 84.1 123.9
Toro 400 100% pressure Gravel None 13 53% 47% 48% 38% 45%

Toro 400 50% pressure Cement 9 18.6% 5 33% 29% 25% 23% none 0 77.4 55.9 34.4 23.7
Toro 400 50% pressure Cement 8.8 25.1% 6 28% 29% 25% none 31% 0 11.6 15.5 -0.4 23.5
Toro 400 50% pressure Cement 20.8% 7 28% N/A 25% none 30% 0 34.6 20.2 44.2

Toro 400 75% pressure Cement 9 20.4% 8 41% 38% 37% 32% 36% 0 101.0 86.3 81.4 54.9 76.5
Toro 400 75% pressure Cement 9.2 18.8% 9 41% 39% 36% 30% 36% 0 118.1 107.4 91.5 57.4 91.5
Toro 400 75% pressure Cement 9.2 21.0% 10 39% 39% 37% 30% 36% 0 85.7 85.7 76.2 43.3 71.4

2 Bell 25t 100% pressure Cement 13.2 30.0% 44 58% 55% 50% none 47% 0 93.3 83.3 65.0 57.3
Bell 25t 100% pressure Cement 13.3 27.2% 45 59% 59% 50% none 52% 0 116.9 116.9 84.6 91.5
Bell 25t 100% pressure Cement 15.3 34.6% 46 57% 55% 50% 54% 56% 0 64.7 59.0 45.4 56.4 61.6

Bell 25t 100% pressure Cement 29.5 44.0% 47 63% 60% 57% 54% 55% 0 43.2 36.4 29.8 23.4 25.7
Bell 25t 100% pressure Cement 29.6 42.8% 48 62% 61% 57% 53% 52% 0 44.9 42.5 32.2 23.4 22.2
Bell 25t 100% pressure Cement 49 62% none none 54% 55%

Bell 25t 100% pressure Cement 48.7 47.1% 50 80% 56% 54% 52% 56% 0 69.9 18.9 13.6 9.8 18.7
Bell 25t 100% pressure Cement 48.4 47.5% 50b none none none none none

Bell 25t 100% pressure Gravel none none 61 none none 27% 27% 27%

Bell 25t 50% pressure Cement 14.5 20.3% 51 36% none 28% 26% 28% 0 77.3 36.0 29.6 35.5
Bell 25t 50% pressure Cement 15 20.8% 52 30% 29% none 27% 28% 0 44.2 39.4 29.3 36.1
Bell 25t 50% pressure Cement 15.9 22.7% 53 35% N/A 28% 26% 29% 0 54.2 24.2 15.4 25.6

Bell 25t 50% pressure Cement 30.7 29.2% 54 33% none 32% none 30% 0 13.0 10.3 2.1
Bell 25t 50% pressure Cement 31.1 27.4% 55 34% none 33% 29% 29% 0 24.1 19.7 6.2 5.8
Bell 25t 50% pressure Cement 30.3 26.3% 56 33% 35% 32% 29% 31% 0 25.5 33.1 23.2 9.9 16.3

40
 Bell 25t 50% pressure Gravel 18.3 21.2% 57 50% none 48% 45% none 0 135.8 125.0 114.2
Bell 25t 50% pressure Gravel 17.3 21.5% 58 none 30% 27% 28% 3150% 0 39.5 25.1 31.2 14551.2
Bell 25t 50% pressure Gravel 19.1 21.8% 58b None None None None None 0

Bell 25t 50% pressure/10 ton load Cement 15.2 21.1% 69 27% 28% 26% 25% none 0 28.0 32.7 21.8 19.0
Bell 25t 50% pressure/10 ton load Cement 14.7 19.8% 70 25% 28% 24% 24% none 0 26.3 41.4 23.2 18.7
Bell 25t 50% pressure/10 ton load Cement 14.1 20.0% 71 27% none 24% 24% none 0 35.0 21.5 18.5

Bell 25t 50% pressure/10 ton load Cement 30.9 24.0% 72 28% none 26% 25% none 0 16.7 8.3 5.8
Bell 25t 50% pressure/10 ton load Cement 30.4 24.8% 73 29% none 26% 25% none 0 16.9 3.2 -0.4
Bell 25t 50% pressure/10 ton load Cement 30.7 23.9% 74 28% none 26% 26% none 0 17.2 8.4 7.5

Bell 25t 25% pressure/10 ton load Gravel 29.7 22.2% 59 none 34% 28% 28% none 0 53.2 27.9 27.9
Bell 25t 25% pressure/10 ton load Gravel 17.6 33.9% 60 none 29% 26% 27% 27% 0 -14.5 -24.8 -21.8 -21.8
Bell 25t 25% pressure/10 ton load Gravel 25.7 32.2% 60b none none none none none 0

Bell 25t 25% pressure/10 ton load Cement 30.1 40.5% 65 51% none 47% 45% none 0 25.9 16.0 11.1
Bell 25t 25% pressure/10 ton load Cement 30.9 41.7% 66 51% 49% 47% 45% none 0 22.3 17.5 12.5 8.4
Bell 25t 25% pressure/10 ton load Cement 29.4 38.7% 67 50% 53% 47% 44% none 0 29.2 37.0 21.7 14.5
Bell 25t 25% pressure/10 ton load Cement 30.2 38.0% 68 52% none 46% 44% none 0 36.8 21.8 16.3

Bell 25t 25% pressure/10 ton load Cement 13.9 28.8% 62 50% none 46% 43% none 0 73.6 58.7 49.0
Bell 25t 25% pressure/10 ton load Cement 15.1 29.7% 63 49% 48% 46% 43% none 0 65.0 61.6 54.5 45.5
Bell 25t 25% pressure/10 ton load Cement 14.3 29.0% 64 50% 48% 46% 43% none 0 72.4 65.5 57.9 46.6

Land
3 Cruiser 100% pressure Cement 15.3 23.9% 14 54% 47% none N/A 48% 0 125.9 96.7 100.4
Land
Cruiser 100% pressure Cement 15.1 27.8% 15 55% 49% 48% N/A 48% 0 97.8 76.3 71.6 72.7
Land
Cruiser 100% pressure Cement 14.5 25.7% 16 55% 45% 47% N/A 50% 0 114.0 75.1 84.4 95.7

Land
Cruiser 100% pressure Gravel 14.7 25.9% 25 none 43% 42% 22% 40% 0 66.0 62.2 -16.6 52.5
Land
Cruiser 100% pressure Gravel 19.8 31.4% 26 50% 48% 48% 42% 46% 0 59.2 52.9 52.2 34.4 47.5
Land
Cruiser 100% pressure Gravel 19.5 31.0% 27 none 48% 45% 42% 46% 0 54.8 44.5 33.9 49.4

Land
Cruiser 100% pressure Cement 29.7 37.9% 17 62% 55% 55% 65% 56% 0 63.6 45.1 45.1 70.4 46.7
Land
Cruiser 100% pressure Cement 29.7 38.5% 18 63% 54% none 66% 53% 0 63.6 40.3 70.9 38.2
Land
Cruiser 100% pressure Cement 30.2 41.6% 19 63% 55% none 66% 56% 0 51.4 32.2 58.2 35.6

41
 Land
Cruiser 100% pressure Gravel 35.5 50.1% 24 51% 51% 49% 37% 49% 0 1.8 1.8 -1.4 -25.5 -2.2
Land
Cruiser 100% pressure Gravel 35.1 37.7% 24b 0

Land
Cruiser 100% pressure Cement 49.4 45.3% 20 62% 59% none none 58% 0 36.9 30.2 28.0
Land
Cruiser 100% pressure Cement 49.8 46.3% 21 64% 57% 58% none 58% 0 38.2 23.1 25.6 24.8
Land
Cruiser 100% pressure Cement 50 47.0% 22 56% 52% none none 58% 0 19.1 10.6 23.6
Land 100% pressure(4*4
Cruiser engaged) Cement 56.3 48.0% 23 62% 60% 48% 60% 0 29.2 25.0 0.8 25.0

Land
Cruiser 1 Bar pressure Cement 14.3 20.0% 28 48% 36% 41% 38% None 0 140.0 80.0 106.5 90.5
Land
Cruiser 1 Bar pressure Cement 15 20.9% 29 47% 39% 43% 40% None 0 124.9 86.6 107.2 92.3
Land
Cruiser 1 Bar pressure Cement 14.4 20.6% 30 50% 33% 42% 38% None 0 142.7 60.2 102.4 84.5

Land
Cruiser 1 Bar pressure Cement 30.7 29.2% 31 52% 43% 50% 44% none 0 78.1 47.3 70.9 50.3

Land
Cruiser 3 Bar pressure Cement 14.6 15.2% 37 27% 19% 25% 23% none 0 77.6 25.0 61.8 52.0
Land
Cruiser 3 Bar pressure Cement 14.3 15.5% 38 30% None 25% 23% none 0 93.5 63.9 51.0
Land
Cruiser 3 Bar pressure Cement 14.8 15.1% 40 28% 22% 27% none 0 85.4 45.7 77.5

Land
Cruiser 3 Bar pressure Cement 29.6 19.9% 34 39% None 29% 26% none 0 96.0 43.2 31.7
Land
Cruiser 3 Bar pressure Cement 30.4 20.7% 35 29% 23% 28% 26% none 0 40.1 11.1 34.8 26.6
Land
Cruiser 3 Bar pressure Cement 30.1 22.1% 36 29% 19% 27% 25% none 0 31.2 -14.0 23.5 11.3

Land
Cruiser 3 Bar pressure Cement 49.9 25.6% 32 33% 26% 31% 47100% none 0 28.9 1.6 21.9 #######
Land
Cruiser 3 Bar pressure Cement 49.6 26.3% 33 33% 26% 31% 47% none 0 25.5 -1.1 17.1 79.5
Land
Cruiser 3 Bar pressure Cement 50 24.6% 39 33% 25% 31% 47% none 0 34.1 1.6 25.2 92.3

Land
Cruiser 3 Bar pressure Gravel 17.1 17.8% 42 31% 27% 29% 28% none 0 74.2 51.7 61.2 55.6
Land
Cruiser 3 Bar pressure Gravel 18.1 18.0% 42 34% 28% 31% 29% none 0 88.9 55.6 72.2 61.1
Land
Cruiser 3 Bar pressure Gravel 16.4 18.5% 43 27% 31% 30% none 0 45.9 67.6 59.5

New
4 Benz 100% pressure Cement 14.5 26.7% 79 None None 44% None none 0 64.0

42
 New
Benz 100% pressure Cement 14.9 28.3% 80 None None 44% 41% none 0 54.8 45.9
New
Benz 100% pressure Cement 14.3 26.4% 81 None None 49% None none 0 86.0

New
Benz 100% pressure Gravel 16.7 27.0% 85 None None 44% 37% none 0 62.6 37.8
New
Benz 100% pressure Gravel 17.7 28.7% 86 None None 45% 41% none 0 55.4 44.3
New
Benz 100% pressure Gravel 16 26.1% 87 None None 41% 54% none 0 55.9 105.7

New
Benz 100% pressure Cement 29.8 41.3% 82 None None 58% 50% none 0 40.4 20.8
New
Benz 100% pressure Cement 29.9 36.8% 83 None None 54% 63% none 0 45.4 72.0
New
Benz 100% pressure Cement 30.2 40.3% 84 None None None None None 0

New
Benz 100% pressure Gravel 31.8 34.1% 88 None None 45% None None 0

5 88 XLP 100% pressure Cement 9 5.1% 75 None None 29% 28% None 0 462.7 449.0
88 XLP 100% pressure Cement 10.4 18.6% 76 None None 29% 28% None 0 47.8
88 XLP 100% pressure Cement 10.1 20.5% 77 None None 30% 29% None 0 39.0

88 XLP 100% pressure Gravel 10.2 20.0% 78a None None 33% 29% None 0 66.5 45.0
88 XLP 100% pressure Gravel 10.4 15.4% 78b None None None None None 0
88 XLP 100% pressure Gravel 9.3 12.7% 78c None None None None None 0

43
BRAKE TESTS 2

1 ton Empty ( = 0, 4 gravel) Level (Separate tests)

44
1 ton Empty ( = 0,8) – Tar Level (Separate tests)

45
ADT Empty ( = 0,4 – gravel) Level (2 Tests)

46
ADT – 40% Load ( = 0,4 gravel) Level (Separate tests)

47
ADT – 70% Load ( = 0,4 gravel) Level (Separate tests)

48
ADT – 70% Load ( = 0,4 gravel) Incline (Separate tests)

49
ADT – 70% Load ( = 0,4 gravel) Decline (Separate tests)

50
ADT – 70% Load ( = 0,4 gravel) Level (Separate tests)

51
BRAKE TESTS 2
Gerotec Brake tests No.
Simret Bowmonk Autotest
Average Deceleration %
Brake efficiency % g Brake efficiency % g g
1 Ton Empty (gravel) 1(a) 44.4 33.3 51
1 Ton Empty (Tar) 3 67 58.5 73
Simret Bowmonk Autotest
ADT Empty level (gravel) 4 32 39.8 36
ADT 40%load level (gravel) 5 27.3 30.2 29
ADT 70%load level (gravel) 6 24.7 26.2 24
ADT 70%load level (gravel) 13 35.4 30.2 37
ADT 70%load Incline
(gravel) 8 13.4 24.1 23
ADT 70%load decline
(gravel) 9 31.4 22.9 20

Brake Efficiency Tar vs. Gravel

Brake efficiency % g

80
70
60 1 Ton Empty
50 (gravel) 1(a)
40
30 1 Ton Empty
20 (Tar) 3
10
0
efficiency %

efficiency %

Deceleration
Average
Brake

Brake

%g
g

Simret Bowmonk Autotest

Brake efficiency

45
40
35
30
Simret
25
%g

Bowmonk
20
15 Autotest
10
5
0
4 5 6 13 8 9
ADT ADT ADT ADT ADT ADT
Empty 40%load 70%load 70%load 70%load 70%load
level level level level Incline decline

52
 APPENDIX C:

SABS EVALUATION OF ELECTRONIC BRAKE TEST

EQUIPMENT

53
54
55
56
57
 APPENDIX D:

RISK ASSESSMENT OF SIMRET 3000 BRAKE TESTER

58
 Risk Assessment Of In Service Brake Testing System

Date: 17-Nov-06

DRAFT

RISK = (PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE) X (SEVERITY OF IMPACT)

PROBABILITY CATEGORIES
CATEGORY PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
1 ONCE IN LIFETIME OF MINE
2 ONCE PER YEAR
3 ONCE PER MONTH
4 ONCE PER DAY

SEVERITY CATEGORIES
CATEGORY SEVERITY OF IMPACT
LOW: DISCOMFORT/ NO COST/ NO PRODUCTION LOSS/NO IMPACT ON
1 SAFETY
MEDIUM: MINOR INJURY/ MINOR COST/ MINOR PRODUCTION LOSS/MINOR
2 IMPACT ON SAFETY
MEDIUM-HIGH: SERIOUS INJURY/ MEDIUM COST/ MAJOR PRODUCTION
3 LOSS/MEDIUM IMPACT ON SAFET
HIGH: FATAL/ HIGH COST/ TOTAL PRODUCTION LOSS/HIGH IMPACT ON
4 SAFETY

1.0 TRANSPORT OF TEST EQUIPMENT Frequency Severity Risk Preventative / Control measures
1. Ensure that equipment is transport in safe and
secure manner
2. Ensure that equipment is handled and stored
Damage to test equipment during transport 4 2 8 according to prescribe guidelines

59
 3. Ensure that equipment is protected against
unnecessary bumps to protect calibration
4. Ensure that test equipment is calibrated at all
times

2.0 OPERATING HAZARDS Frequency Severity Risk

1. Ensure that instrument is mounted level as not
to influence accuracy
2. Ensure that instrument is properly secure to
avoid it from flying around during testing
3. Secure instrument according to operating
Anchoring of instrument during testing 4 4 16 procedures
1. Ensure that pedal force transducer is safely
and securely mounted on brake pedal to
prevent any slipping
2. Ensure that all pipes and fittings are stowed
away to prevent accidental tangling
3. Attach pedal force transducer according to
Attachment of pedal force transducer 4 2 8 relevant operating procedure
1. Ensure test equipment Is off before connecting
to host computer
2. Ensure that equipment are properly connected
to host computer before any transfer starts
3. Ensure machine is switch off before
Transfer of data from test equipment to host computer 4 1 4 disconnecting from host computer
1. Operate on flat surface
2. Start engine and ensure that air accumulators
are full
3. Release emergency and park brake
4. Apply service brake while vehicle is in neutral
5. Select first gear and increase engine RPM to
recommended speed. The vehicle must not
move
Testing of service brakes (Static testing) 4 1 4 6. Do not use the vehicle if it moves
1. Start the engine
2. Select the neutral position in the
transmission
3. Let the air pressure build up to operating
pressure. This must happen in the
recommended period of time for the
specific vehicle
4. Select first gear in the transmission
5. Increase the engine speed to 50% of
maximum revolutions per minute. The
machine must not move.
Testing of emergency brake (Static) 4 1 4 6. Do not use the machine if it moves, but

60

Testing of hydrostatic drives (dynamic)
Testing of mechanical braking systems (dynamic)
report to the relevant workshop
1. Artisan or designated test person will
conduct all dynamic brake tests.
2. Dynamic brake tests will be carried out at
a specified interval like on a weekly basis;
on each service (excluding daily services)
and after any intervention, repairs or
adjustments have been carried out on
braking systems. As per the code of
practice of the mine.
3. The brakes must be tested and certified
statically before any dynamic testing
commences
4. Dynamic tests will be carried out on a dry
surface, with an empty vehicle. Make
sure that the testing surface will remain
approximately constant over a period of
time
5. Set up the test equipment as detailed in
the applicable manual.
6. Travel the machine at the speed as
specified in SABS 1589 or at the highest
speed possible if the speed cannot be
achieved and apply the service brakes
brake.
7. Ensure that the machine is moving in a
straight line at all times
8. Allow the instrument to calculate the
braking effort.
9. Compare the brake efficiency with the
new brake value (blue printed value) for
the specific vehicle.
10. If the brake efficiency drops below the
prescribed value for the specific category
of vehicles, the vehicle must be with
drawn from service
11. Compare the brake system reaction time
with the new brake value (blue printed
value) and if there is a reduction of more
than the prescribed value for the specific
category of vehicle the vehicle must be
4 1 4 inspected and repair (System check).
1. Artisan or designated test person will
4 1 4 conduct all dynamic brake tests.
61
 2. Dynamic brake tests will be carried out at
a specified interval like on a weekly basis;
on each service (excluding daily services)
and after any intervention, repairs or
adjustments have been carried out on
braking systems. As per the code of
practice of the mine.
3. The brakes must be tested and certified
statically before any dynamic testing
commences
4. Dynamic tests will be carried out on a dry
surface, with an empty vehicle. Make
sure that the testing surface will remain
approximately constant over a period of
time
5. Set up the test equipment as detailed in
the applicable manual.
6. Travel the machine at the speed as
specified in SABS 1589 or at the highest
speed possible if the speed cannot be
achieved and apply the service brakes
brake.
7. Ensure that machine moves in a straight
line at all times
8. Allow the instrument to calculate the
braking effort.
9. Compare the brake efficiency with the
new brake value (blue printed value) for
the specific vehicle.
10. If the brake efficiency drops below the
prescribed value for the specific category
of vehicles, the vehicle must be with
drawn from service
11. Compare the brake system reaction time
with the new brake value (blue printed
value) and if there is a reduction of more
than the prescribed value for the specific
category of vehicle the vehicle must be
inspected and repair (System check).

3.0 MAINTENANCE Frequency Severity Risk

1. Ensure that printer is functional and that all
prints are clear
2. Ensure that batteries are fully charged
Daily inspections and maintenance of test equipment 4 1 4 3. Ensure that screen clean and that all
62
 instructions are clearly visible
4. Ensure that pedal force transducer are
functional
5. Ensure that all securing straps are functional
6. Ensure that test equipment is calibrated
7. Ensure that used batteries are discarded
according to manufacturer recommendations
1. Ensure availability of printing paper
2. Ensure availability of ink
3. Ensure availability of spare batteries
Spares 4 1 4 4. Ensure that paper is stored in dry area

4.0 HUMAN ACTIVITIES Frequency Severity Risk

1. Ensure that test equipment are properly
monitored as it can be used to inflict bodily
Strikes 2 2 4 harm
1. Ensure that the test equipment is tamperproof
to avoid wrongful readings due to sabotage
2. Ensure adequate control over testing
procedures to prevent sabotage of machines
Sabotage 2 4 8 or data
1. Comprehensive training methods to be
developed to ensure that all relevant personnel
are competent to operate test equipment
2. Comprehensive training methods to be
developed to ensure that all relevant personnel
Training 2 3 6 are familiar with testing procedure
Sufficient quality control and supervisory standards to
Taking short cuts 4 3 12 be developed and introduced
Sufficient quality control and supervisory standards to
Incorrect installation and loading 2 4 8 be developed and introduced
Sufficient quality control and supervisory standards to
Routine inspections and maintenance 4 2 8 be developed and introduced
Sufficient quality control and supervisory standards to
Incorrect operating procedures 4 1 4 be developed and introduced

63
 APPENDIX E:

TEST RESULTS CONDUCTED AT LEEUPAN COLLIERY

64
 740-49

35.00%
32.60%
30.00% 29.00%
25.00% 26.00% 26.40%
Percentage

24.10% 23.00%
20.00% 20.10%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
2005/03/10

2005/10/10

27/10/2005

27/12/2005

2006/05/01

2006/12/01

30/01/06
Date

740-64

40.00%
35.00% 35.80%

30.00% 31.20%
29.40%
27.20%
25.90% 25.50%
Percentage

25.00%
21.80%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
01/00/00 01/02/00 01/04/00 01/06/00 01/08/00
Date

65
 740-68

40.00%

35.00% 33.80%
30.00%
28.20%
26.80% 27.40%
Percentage
25.00%

20.00% 21.00% 21.20%

15.00%

10.00%
5.00%

0.00%
1900/01/ 1900/01/ 1900/01/ 1900/01/ 1900/01/ 1900/01/ 1900/01/ 1900/01/
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
Date

66
 APPENDIX F:

RECORDINGS OF TESTS CONDUCTED BEFORE AND AFTER

MAINTENANCE
(KROMDRAAI COLLIERY)

67
 KTK
Test Nr Date 124
1 16/07/2001 24
2 20/08/2001 28.4
3 17/09/2001 29.1
4 22/11/2001 33.2
5 23/01/2002 36.8
6 01/03/2002 31.6
7 17/04/2002 28.8
8 28/05/2002 19.7
9 20/06/2002 35
10 23/07/2002 28.9
11 22/08/2002 18.1
12 22/08/2002 29
13 19/09/2002 28.7
14 16/10/2002 27.5
15 12/12/2002 23.4
16 12/12/2002 31.7

KHF
Test Nr Date 001
1 21/06/2002 13.4
2 18/07/2002 29.5
3 22/09/2002 19.3
4 17/10/2002 24
5 20/11/2002 26.4
6 12/12/2002 23.6
7 24/01/2003 23.4
8 27/01/2003 17
9 03/07/2003 16.3
10 01/08/2003 13.7
11 26/08/2003 26.3
12 23/10/2003 27.4
13 02/12/2003 27.1

Vehicle KDT KDT KDT KHT KHT KMG KMG

Regestration 001 002 003 004 006 003 004
07/2001 31.8 31.8 31.4 28.6 29.1 27.6 24.6
08/2001 31.1 37.7 28.6 27.3
09/2001 29.8 31.4 27.2 36 27.8 27.1 27.2
10/2001 20.3
11/2001 20 30.2 24.7 36.3 27.7 28.1
12/2001
1/2002 27.7 18.2 31.2 26.7 28.6
2/2002 21.7 30.3 22.6 36.1 30.4 30.3 30.1
3/2002 23.1 33.3 25.3 41 31.8 31.6 27
68
4/2002 24 34.1 39.3 31.5 32.2 32.3
5/2002 21.3 20.8 29.2 32.2 33.2 29.3
6/2002 27 27.9 31.8 38.2 31.1 27.7 27.7
7/2002 22.2 30.3 22.5 30.7 32.8 29.6 29.3
8/2002 21.7 32.5 30.6 28.4 29.7
9/2002 33 25.6 34.5 31.1 32.3 29.9
10/2002 21.3 23.7 38.2 29.8 27.6 20
11/2002 21.8 26.1 31.8 28.9 30.4 30
12/2002 20 28.3 28.7 44 27
1/2003 17.9 23.5 36.5 30.6 26.7 26.2
2/2003 19.7 22.9 34.3 28.9 30.8 29.2
3/2003 22 26.6 31.5 30.4 28.5 27.7
4/2003 20.4 25.1 33.9 30.9 32.3 29.4
5/2003 22.1 24.5 37.3 30.6 31.5
6/2003 22.5 24.2 32.4 31.5 20.3
7/2003 29.3 26.4 28.4
8/2003 24 26.1 27.3 30.9 27.3
9/2003 22.7 22.6 25.8 27.8 27.7

69