Ground-Engaging Tool Detection With Containment Area Confirmation
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing monitoring systems for ground-engaging tools (GETs) in machines at worksites suffer from frequent false alarms and fail to accurately locate and confirm missing or damaged GETs, leading to unnecessary downtime and potential damage to processing machinery.
Innovation Solution
A supervisory controller system that includes machine-vision devices and machine learning models to identify, confirm, and locate missing or damaged GETs, generating containment areas for affected machines, and allowing continued operation while minimizing false alarms.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Measurement precision
If monitoring systems are deployed to detect missing or damaged ground-engaging tools, then detection capability is improved, but false alarm rate increases
Solution Approach 1:
The system implements a confirmation feedback loop where initial detections trigger alerts that require verification through multiple data sources (machine vision, machine location data, containment area analysis) before final confirmation. This feedback mechanism allows the system to maintain high detection sensitivity while filtering out false alarms through iterative verification.
Solution Approach 2:
The supervisory controller acts as an intermediary between the detection system and the alarm output. It receives raw detection data, processes it through multiple validation steps including generating containment areas and cross-referencing with machine location information, and only triggers alarms when all intermediate checks confirm a genuine missing or damaged GET condition.
2Object-affected harmful factors
If monitoring systems trigger alarms for potentially missing or damaged GETs, then safety is improved, but productivity decreases due to unnecessary shutdowns
Solution Approach 1:
The system performs preliminary actions by generating containment areas and collecting machine location data before triggering final alarms or shutdowns. This preliminary analysis phase allows the system to distinguish between genuine threats requiring shutdown and false alarms that can be dismissed, thereby maintaining safety while avoiding unnecessary productivity loss.
Solution Approach 2:
The system applies partial action by implementing a tiered response mechanism: initial detections trigger containment area generation and data collection (partial response), while only confirmed cases trigger full alarms and shutdowns (excessive action). This graduated approach ensures safety for genuine threats while minimizing unnecessary productivity impact from false alarms.
3Device complexity
If traditional monitoring systems are used, then simple detection is achieved, but location confirmation capability is insufficient
Solution Approach 1:
The system transitions from two-dimensional image analysis alone to a multi-dimensional approach by integrating machine location data (GPS coordinates), temporal information (time stamps), and spatial containment areas. This dimensional expansion enables precise location confirmation of missing or damaged GETs while maintaining reasonable system complexity through centralized supervisory control.
Data Source
AI summary
A method for monitoring and confirming damaged or missing ground-engaging tools at a worksite includes receiving an alert associated with a damaged or missing ground-engaging tool of an earthmoving machine, receiving a confirmation for the damaged or missing tool, and generating a containment area representing one or more locations where at least part of the ground-engaging tool is potentially located. The method also includes determining that an additional machine was present in the containment area and taking an action for the additional machine based on the presence of the machine in the containment area, the action including generating a notification or controlling an action of the additional machine.