Human factors in ship design, safety and operation iv

Overview • Introduction; • Vulnerability of Maintenance; • Background to the Research; • Human Factors HF guidance what it contains; -• Cross over potential to maritime industry;... • D

© 2007: The Royal Institution of Naval ArchitectsThe Institution is not, as a body, responsible for the opinions expressed by the individual authors or speakers

THE ROYAL INSTITUTION OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS

10 Upper Belgrave Street London SW1X 8BQ Telephone: 020 7235 4622 Fax: 020 7259 5912 ISBN No: 1-905040-34-2

HUMAN FACTORS IN SHIP DESIGN,

SAFETY & OPERATION IV

21 - 22 March 2007

Overview

• Introduction;

• Vulnerability of Maintenance;

• Background to the Research;

• Human Factors (HF) guidance what it contains;

-• Cross over potential to maritime industry;

Introduction – why are we here?

• Describe Human Factors Guidance developed for Rail Vehicle Maintainers;

• Detail why there is a need for this type of guidance for maintenance work;

• Discuss the cross over potential of this guidance to the Maritime Industry.

The vulnerability of maintenance

• Maintenance still largely dependant on humans;

• Maintenance tasks provide considerable opportunity for human error to occur;

• Human error is largely a consequence of the work system, how it has been designed and other wider organisational factors.

Consequences

• 1988 Clapham Rail – collision;

• 1988 Piper Alpha – explosion;

• 1984 Union Carbide Bhopal – a

cloud of toxic chemical was

released;

• 2000 Erika – one of Europe's worst

ever oil spills.

Work system failures

• Poor work planning creates time pressure (maintainers hurry work and violate

safety procedures);

• Equipment/components are not easily accessible or appropriate (maintainer

use or adapt equipment/components not suitable for the job);

• Documentation does not provide easily understandable or readable instruction;

• Maintainers are frequently interrupted and distracted (do not re-instate

system to operational state);

• Inadequate lighting means that the maintainer fails to identify a fault;

• Vehicle design allows swarf debris to enter electrical systems during

maintenance work causing failure;

• Poor communication of new procedures during briefings (maintainers continue

to follow old ways of working).

How can Human Factors help?

“scientific discipline that applies systematic, evidence-based methods and knowledge about people to evaluate and improve the interaction between individuals, technology and organisations“ - Rail Industry Advisory

Committee (RIAC)

The guiding principles of human factors:

• Errors are a consequence not a cause;

• Errors and poor performance do not occur randomly;

• Seek input from those that carry out the work (maintainers);

• Design to make allowances for people;

• Strengthen defences to limit & contain predictable errors;

• Apply good practice

Background to the RSSB work

• Research commissioned by Rail Safety &

Standards Board (RSSB);

• Help those responsible for carrying out Rail

Vehicle M&I identify HF issues and find solutions;

• The overriding requirement was to deliver a:

“Useable and tested product that can be

readily applied to M&I operation

• Development of the structure and content of the guidance package;

• Case studies (applied the guidance to real issues impacting on depot

Screen Shot

Guidance Tools

• Event Classification System;

• Maintenance Personnel Questionnaire;

• Decision Making Aid Questions;

• Workshop templates;

• Human Factors Framework;

• Human Factors Good Practice - designing for maintainability.

Identifying issues - Questionnaire

Please select 5 items from the list below that you think, if made better, could improve vehicle maintenance tasks at your depot

Design of maintenance & inspection

tasks.

Work planning and scheduling.

Training and competency assessment Company commitment and priority to health &

safety Procedures & documents (task

instruction, manuals VMIs).

Monitoring, talking about and controlling for factors that can affect performance at work (fatigue, stress, diet, sleep).

Work environment (lighting, heat,

noise, air quality, tidiness).

Provision and quality of tools and equipment.

Communication across departments,

from management and between teams

13

Other…………

Identifying issues - results graph

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Decision Making Aid (DMA)

Questions

Communication

Are the media/method used to support the communication appropriate for the

situation or environment, for example: If communication is verbal does it occur in a noisy environment?

Are maintainers kept informed about changes to the workplace?

Are maintainers provided with up-to-date information on any current issues that might be affecting their work?

Does management provide maintainers with feedback on how well they are doing, for example fleet performance?

Are management visible and available for communication?

Selecting Solutions

Key steps in identifying and selecting solutions include:

• Identifying and developing potential ideas;

• Considering the advantages and disadvantages;

• Getting buy-in from maintenance personnel;

• Conducting a cost-benefit-analysis for solutions;

• Developing a business case for these solutions

Good practice (design for

maintainability)

• Layout of the vehicle provides space and access to components and systems;

• Components subject to wear can be easily inspected, accessed, removed and replaced;

• Standard layout of systems and components (reduce the likelihood of incorrect re-wiring);

• Adequate labelling (legible, easy to read and distinguishable);

• Easy to remove and mistake proof fastenings for regularly serviced items;

• Reducing the opportunity for contaminants to enter critical systems;

• Providing a feedback loop from maintainers to

manufacturers/designers/refurbishers on how design makes their work more difficult.

Case study

• Maintenance personnel, team leaders and managers were interviewed using the

process and tools provided in the guidance package;

• The questionnaire proactively identified an HF issue which management had been unaware of and highlighted serious concerns with tools and equipment;

• Following the results of the questionnaire, the issue was discussed with maintenance personnel and an audit conducted This identified a number of areas for improvement.

Outcomes

• Calibrated equipment better labelled;

• The tool request form has been

Cross over potential

“…lack of attention to the human system interface, in terms of the

design, layout, and integration of systems, and training in their use, is the root cause of many accidents today” - President of the Nautical Institute

The maritime industry, as with all other safety critical industries, is faced with the challenge of addressing HF issues in maintenance and inspection:

x Training - ensuring staff, who are frequently at sea for long periods of time and

being moved from ship to ship, are up to date with all relevant maintenance training;

x Communication - supporting communication between on-shore and off-shore

maintenance operations;

x Procedures – providing clear and useable procedures in appropriate languages

How this guidance could benefit

the Maritime Industry

• Provides a systematic approach, for example, to investigate and classify

incidents and accidents;

• Provides tools (questionnaire) to help managers and designers to better

understand the difficulties faced by those carrying out the work (maintainers);

• Explains the Human Factors philosophy, for example, how errors and violations are a product of the workplace;

• In developing the guidance, HF knowledge and approaches were derived from other industries;

• The tools and knowledge provided in the guidance are highly transferable and equally applicable across other safety critical industries including maritime

Possible future actions

• Develop the evidence base for HF issues impacting on maintenance performance in the maritime industry;

• Explore the relevance of existing HF guidance;

• Adapt existing guidance to maritime Industry;

• Validate and test the guidance using case studies.

Thank you – any questions

We would like to offer thanks to: RSSB, ATOC, Freightliner, First Scot Rail, First Great Western, Arriva Train Wales and all the other operating companies who helped to develop this guidance.

into Preliminary Ship Design

D Andrews, L Casarosa and R Pawling,

University College London, UK

E Galea, S Deere and P Lawrence,

University of Greenwich, UK

• Introduction

• Maritime EXODUS

• Use of the Behaviour Matrix

• Results of Personnel Movement Analysis

• Design Building Block Approach

• Integration of Personnel Movement with Ship Design

• Ship Variants

• Conclusions

• To explore the impact on naval ship configurational design of issues associated with crew manning numbers, function and movement;

• To identify key performance measures for successful crew

performance in normal and extreme conditions;

• To extend the ship evacuation software maritimeEXODUS to include additional non-emergency simulation capabilities;

• To extend the ship design software SURFCON so that it can provide a modelling environment that interactively accepts maritimeEXODUS

simulation output for a range of crew evolutions;

• To demonstrate an approach to ship design that integrates ship

configuration design with modelling of a range of crewing issues

through PARAMARINE / SURFCON

• EXODUS: software tools used

to simulate behaviour and

movement in large complex

spaces.

• EXODUS R&D started 1989

• Users in 30 countries.

• mEXODUS fully compliant with

MSC1033 and in addition has

5

Slide arrangement in FIRE-EXIT trials

abandonment phase

7

• Warship configuration is inherently more

complex than that of a commercial vessel: e.g

different fixtures and fittings .

• NOP and emergency procedures more

complex.

•Require additional HF data and software

capabilities to accommodate

• Evaluating vessel layout for HF issues using software such as mEX can be

a long and complex process

• Analysis requires;

– identification of relevant design scenarios, encompassing evacuation and NOP, – development of appropriate measures to gauge performance of crew + vessel – interpretation of vast amounts of simulation data

• Currently, only guidelines for evaluating HF performance of ship design relate to evacuation - conclusions concerning overall suitability of design open to interpretation

– Complexity of task grows as number + type of scenario considered increases – Extremely difficult for fleet operators to set and verify HF design objectives for new vessel concepts.

• HPM is a comparative methodology that allows both accurate and rapid assessment of HF issues associated with vessel layout and crew operating procedures which is:

– systematic and transparent

– discriminating and diagnostic

• HPM provides the means to compare and assess competing design

variants.

• To gauge HF performance of the vessel it is essential to define a range of relevant ES against which the vessel will be tested.

• These scenarios are intended to define the scope of the

challenges the vessel will be subjected to.

• ES are made up of both evacuation and NOP scenarios

• ES are dependent on the nature and class of vessel ES for a cruise ship will be different to those for a naval vessel and those for an aircraft carrier may be different to those for a submarine

• For a surface combatant, we have defined the following five

scenarios:

– Normal Night Cruising (evacuation scenario)

• Normal Day Cruising and State 1 preps are used in this example.

• Ships complement undertake different tasks.

• Therefore crew is divided into logical subgroups based

on roles known as FG.

• FG allow analysis to focus on performance of important crew subgroups whose contribution may swamp that of other FGs or be swamped by other FGs when

considering the overall performance of the vessel

• Examples of FG for a surface combatant are:

– Entire ships company

– Fire and repair party

– Warfare

– Electrical

– First Aid

• Performance of each FG in each ES is assessed through a set of PM

– how far individuals travel in order to fulfil their duties

– how long it takes to complete an assigned task e.g close all WTD.

• Each PM returns a value determined from computer simulation of ES.

• High PM values indicate poor performance

• At present 31 different PM have been defined (across all FG).

• Vessel Performance (VP) determined as follows, for each variant:

– Perform all ES, determine PM values for each relevant FG in each ES.

– Normalise PM values (based on largest PM score across each variant)

– For each ES, take weighted (based on importance of PM) sum of PM to determine ES score.

– Take weighted (based on importance of ES) sum of ES scores to determine VP.

• Vessel with lowest VP has best performance according to the ES, PM and weights defined.

• Examine Scenario and PM scores to determine if performance of

winning vessel can be improved.

• Two design variants of a Type 22 Batch III Frigate.

– Variant 1 has two single passageway passing decks

– Variant 2 has two double passageway passing decks

• Each variant has a complement of 262 and will involve the same OP and the same FGs (full complement and Fire and repair party) In total 18 PMs are used in the analysis.

• Each variant has the same number of vertical access points.

• Two ES investigated:

– State 1 Preps

• The vessel closes up for action stations

• Water tight Integrity condition Z implemented

• Fire fighters dressed ready for action

• Crew move to their state 1 (battle stations) locations

– Evacuation Normal Day Cruising

• Vessel initially in state 3

• crew move to their emergency stations

• Overall, variant 1 outperforms Variant 2 by 12%.

• Variant 2 outperforms variant 1 by 5% in evacuation ES

15

16

• On average crew in variant 2:

– experience 1/3 less congestion than variant 1 (G4)

– travel 12 metres further than those in variant 1 (G5)

– used 44% more WT doors en route (M1)

• Utilise analysis to target and improve areas of poor

performance in the winning design.

using the Design Building Block approach

• Ship design research exploration

• Requirement drivers

• Impact of all electric ship

• Design for production studies

• Offshore support vessel

Space Definition

Geometric Definition

RADICAL IDEAS

BALANCEINDICATION

Data-Functiona l

Efficiency

SPACE INVENTORY (Required v Achieved)

Volume Distribution

Technology Changes

GENERALARRANGEMENT

DETAILEDLAYOUT

Space Required/

Available

Technology Changes

Stability

Resistance and Propulsion

Space/

Weight Algorithms

Access &

Margin Policy

FUNCTIONALHIERARCHYDECOMPOSITIONMODEL

Maneuvering

Cost Model

Personnel

HULLFORMMODEL

HULLFORM MODEL

Vulnerability / Survivability

TOPSIDE &

MAJOR FEATUREIMPLICATIONS

Propul Weap

?Acc

Cont Weapons Command

?

SURFCON

Graphical Views of a Mess Deck

22

23

SURFCON Design Models

JOINT EPSRC Type 22 Batch III

UCL Dock Mothership

25

26

Drawing

28

29

• Lower resolution models

• Human performance metrics

• Develop Class based “Gold Standards”.

• Sensitivity analysis

• Guidance

a The design of ships

b The level of detailed design

c The wider design process

• Baseline Type 22 Batch III

• Double passageway variant

• Variant with all cabin accommodation to modern standards

– Groups of cabins represented by single Building Blocks

• Medium-resolution cabin based accommodation variant

– Individual cabins each represented by Building Blocks