Human Performance Standards for Ship MotionA review and a preliminary gap analysis
P. MatsangasM.E. McCauleyF. Papoulias
Acknowledgments
The presented work is part of the
Ship – Human Integration
Performance System (SHIPS) Project
supported by the
Office of Naval Research
The question
How well do existing standards used in ship design, address human performance issues?
The scope
Assessment of current state on◦Motion Sickness◦Sopite Syndrome◦Sleep disturbances because of
motion ◦Motion induced fatigue◦Effects of human activity◦Comfort◦Health
The approach
Induced Motion
Motion Sickness
Effects on human activity
Sleep amount and quality
Sopite Syndrome
Motion-induced fatigue (MIF)
Human Element
Motion Sickness Incidence (MSI) (vomiting)
Human Performance
Working efficiency (or performance)
Motion Induced Interruptions (MII)
Other effects
Manual Material Handling (MMH)
Occupational health and safety
Health and safety effects
Long-term exposure health effects
Short-term exposure safety effects (injury)
Comfort
Comfort or amenities
Taxonomy
Core
• ABS Doc. No. 102: 2001
• ABS Doc. No. 103: 2001
• ASTM F1166-07• BS 6841:1987• BS 14253:2003• ISO 2631-1:1997• ISO 2631-4:1997• ISO 2631-5:1997• ISO 6954:2000• MIL-STD-
1472F:1999• NATO STANAG
4154:2000• VDI 2057 part 1:
2002• Directive
2002/44/EC• Graham (1990)
“Periphery”
• Def-Stan 00-25 Part 14, Section 1, Issue 1: 2008
• ISO 2041: 1993, Ed. 2
• ISO 2631-2: 2003, Ed. 2
• ISO 4867: 1984• ISO 5348: 1998• ISO 5805: 1997• ISO 5982: 2001• ISO 6897: 1984• ISO 8041: 2005• ISO 8727: 1997• ISO 9996: 1996• ISO 10056: 2001• ISO 10326: 1992• ISO 13090: 1998• ISO 20283-3: 2006• NIOSH No. 97-141:
1997• PD CEN/TR 15172-
2: 2005• ENV 12299: 1999• BS 7482-3: 1991• HSE 2001/068:
2002
Guides and other publications
• ABCD High Speed Craft HFE Design Guide
• ABS: Application of ergonomics to marine systems
• ASTM F1337-91• Def-Stan 00-250
Part 0, Issue 1: 2008
• Def-Stan 00-250 Part 3, Section 9, Issue 1: 2008
• Def-Stan 00-250 Part 3, Section 10, Issue 1: 2008
• MIL-HDBK-1908B: 1999
• NATO ANEP-24: 1993
• NATO ANEP 25: 1991
• NATO ANEP 26: 1993
• STANAG 4194: 1993
• Human Engineering Design Data Digest
• NATO NG/6 – ST/SSD
• PD 12349: 1997• WMO:1995
Withdrawn/ cancelled
• ASIC ADV PUB 61/103/03A
• ASIC INFO PUB 61/115/05C
• ISO 2631-3: 1985• MIL-STD-
1800A:1990
Human response to vibration
According to DEF STAN 00-250, and BS 6841:1987
Major motion attributes
•Duration
•Short duration accelerations:
impact or shocks (acting 1 sec or
less)
•Sustained or continuous
accelerations (acting 1 sec or more)
•Frequency envelope
Low-frequency motion < 1 Hz
(conventional criterion)
Vibration: 1 Hz <frequencies < 80
Hz (ISO, 1996).
•Time dependency
•transient or stationary, harmonic,
periodic or stochastic
WBV effects
According to BS 6841:1987
Frequency rangeMotion sickness: 0.1 - 0.5 HzHealth effects: 0.5 - 80 HzVibration perception: 0.5 - 80 HzComfort: 0.5 - 80 HzEffects on human activity: 1.0 -
80 HzVision: 20 – 70 Hz or more.
0.0 0.1 0.5 1.0 80
Motion sickness
Health effects Perception of vibration
Comfort
Effects on human activity Vision
20 70
Assessment methods
ISO 2631-1:1997
BS 6841:1987
Maximum transient vibration
value (MTVV)
• ISO 2631-1:1997 •“A”
• Frequency-weighted RMS acceleration
• “B”
• Vibration dose value method (VDV)
• Running RMS method
• VDI 2057 Part 1: 2002• Running RMS method
Motion Sickness IRelated Standards
• ABS Doc. No. 103: 2001
• ASTM F1166-07• BS 6841:1987• ISO 2631-1:1997• ISO 2631-4:1997• MIL-STD-1472F:1999
• NATO STANAG 4154:2000
• VDI 2057 part 1: 2002
Symptomatology
• Malaise• Discomfort• Pallor• Sweating• Nausea• Vomiting
HFR model
Motion Sickness II
Ref: ISO 2631-1:1997, BS 6841:1987
Assessment Methods Criteria
(1)
(2)
Measure acceleration at Z-axis
•10%
• ABS 103 (passengers)
• ASTM F1166-07 (personnel)
• ISO 2631-3:1985 (cancelled)
•20% @ 4 hrs
• STANAG 4154:ed.3
•“Minimize motion sickness”
• MIL-STD-1472F
MSI
What MSI?
Visual inputAxesInduced
motionSelf-
motionSympto
mRespon
se
Motion sickness
Discomfort
Nausea or
malaise
Emesis
No
Real
x-axis
y-axis
z-axis
Static
Movingmulti-axes
Apparent
Yes
Comfort
Related Standards
• ABS 102: 2001• ABS 103: 2001• ASTM F1166-
07• BS 6841:1987• ISO 2631-
1:1997• ISO 2631-
4:1997• MIL-STD-
1472F:1999• ISO 6954:200• VDI 2057 part
1: 2002
Criteria
Range Reaction< 0.315 Not uncomfortable0.315 – 0.63 A little uncomfortable0.50 – 1.0 Fairly uncomfortable0.8 – 1.6 Uncomfortable1.25 – 2.5 Very uncomfortable> 2.0 Extremely uncomfortable
Table 1: Indicative comfort reaction according to ISO 2631-1:1997 and BS 6841:1987 (RMS acceleration in m/s^2)
Ship areaAdverse comments
are not probableAdverse comments are
probable
Classification “A”(i.e. passenger cabins)
< 0.0715 > 0.143
Classification “B”(i.e. accommodation areas)
< 0.107 > 0.214
Classification “C”(i.e. working areas)
< 0.143 > 0.286
Table 2: Criteria proposed by ISO 6954:2000 (RMS accelerations in m/s^2)
VDV ~ 15 m/s1.75 will usually cause severe discomfort.
Crew◦ ≤ 0.4 m/s2 RMS acceleration,
preventing crew severe discomfort
◦ ≤ 0.315 m/s2 RMS acceleration improving crew comfort
Passengers◦ ≤ 0.315 m/s2 RMS
acceleration, For passengers comfort
◦ ≤ 0.20 m/s2 RMS acceleration Optimal passenger comfort
Health
Related Standards
• ASTM F1166-07• BS 6841:1987• BS 14253• ISO 2631-1:1997• ISO 2631-5:1997• MIL-STD-
1472F:1999• Directive
2002/44/EC• VDI 2057 part 1:
2002
Figure 2: Health guidance zones for limited exposures according to ASTM F1166-07
Figure 1: Health guidance caution zone according to ISO 2631-1:1997
•Type 1 (ASTM F1166-07)• < 4G
• 0.5 MPa (low pr)• 0.8 Mpa (high
pr)• > 4G
• 3.9 MPa (low pr)• 4.7 Mpa (high
pr)
Effects of human activity I
Criteria setPerformance limitation
Parameter Criterion LocationDefault Roll 4°
Pitch 1.5°Vertical Acceleration 0.2 g BridgeLateral Acceleration 0.1 g Bridge
Recommended MSI 20% of crew @ 4 hrs Task locationMII 1/min Task location
Table 1: Human performance criteria according to NATO STANAG 4154:Ed.3
Risk Level MIIs per minutePossible 0.1Probable 0.5Serious 1.5Severe 3.0Extreme 5.0
Table 2: Preliminary values for MIIs risk levels in ship deck operations
Related Standards
• ABS 102:2001• ABS 103:2001• BS 6841:1987• MIL-STD-
1472F:1999• NATO STANAG
4154:2000• Graham (1990)
Effects of human activity IIManual Material Handling (MMH)
Handling taskPopulation
Male and female Male onlyLift an object from the floor and place it on a surface not greater than 152 cm above the floor
16.8 kg 25.4 kg
Lift an object from the floor and place it on a surface not greater than 91 cm above the floor
20.0 kg 39.5 kg
Carry an object 10 m or less 19.0 kg 37.2 kgCarry an object more than 10 m 13.6 kg
Table 3: Maximum weight limits derived from ASTM F1166-07 and MIL-STD1472F
Horizontal force Task Comments
100N (25 lb)Push or pull with both hands or one shoulder or the back
Low traction: 0.2<μ<0.3
200N (45 lb)Push or pull with both hands or one shoulder or the back
Medium traction: μ ~0.6
250N (55 lb) Push with one handif braced against a vertical wall 51–152 cm from and parallel to the push panel
300N (70 lb)Push or pull with both hands or one shoulder or the back
Low traction: μ>0.9
500N (110 lb)Push or pull with both hands or one shoulder or the back
if braced against a vertical wall 51–178 cm from and parallel to the panel or anchoring the feet on a perfectly nonslip ground
750N (165 lb) Push with the back
if braced against a vertical wall 51–178 cm from and parallel to the panel or anchoring the feet on a perfectly nonslip ground
Table 4: Maximum weight limits derived from ASTM F1166-07 and MIL-STD1472F
Effects of human activity IIManual Material Handling (MMH)
Description Roll PitchTrainable Missile Systems: Missile handling – manual operation (during TAP)
2.5° 2.5°
Loading torpedoes on Dollies (during TAP or NAO) 1.3° 1.3°Loading torpedoes by hand (during TAP, NAO, or WRL) 1.5° 1.5°Weapon and Sensor Systems support equipment (ordnance handling, arming, maintenance) (during TAP, NAO, or WRL)
1.8° 1.8°
Generic Helicopter and STOVL handling (during NAO) 1.8° 1.8°Move a sample actual helicopter using lashings when the helicopter is traversing (during NAO)
2.0° 0.5°
Move a sample actual helicopter using lashings when the helicopter is stationary (during NAO)
3.0° 5.0°
MMH related criteria according to STANAG 4154:ed 3 (RMS amplitude values)
Sopite Syndrome
Related Standards
Sleep Disturbances
Related Standards X
Affected tasks
• Complex• Uninteresting• Lengthy• Vigilance• Subsidiary• Work-paced
Effects
• Concentration• Lapses• Vigilance• Action• Memory• Comprehension• Disorientation
Motion Induced Fatigue (MIF)
Related Standards
Overview
StandardHealthEffects
Vibration Perception Comfort
Effects on Human ActivityMotion Sickness Sopite
SyndromeSleep
DisturbancesMotion Induced
Fatigue(MIF)
MIIs/Other MMH
ABS 102 [1]
ABS 103
ASTM F1166-07 [2]
BS 6841 [3]
BS 14253
ISO 2631-1
ISO 2631-4
ISO 2631-5 [4]
ISO 6954 [5]
MIL-STD 1472F [6]
STANAG 4154 [7] [8]
2002/44/EC
VDI 2057 part 1
Graham (1990)
[1] Crew task interference in general[2] Lifting, carrying, pushing[3] Hand (or finger) manipulation and control, and vision[4] Cumulative lumbar spine response[5] Habitability related to vibration[6] Visual tasks and major body resonances[7] Related to naval tasks, and missions[8] Related to naval tasks, and missions
Response criteria
Sea Spectrum
System Performance
System (Ship) Ship’s dynamics
Motion response
criteria
Derived response
criteria
Seakeeping Analysis
Human Element
Operator Maintainer Passenger
Human Performance Criteria
Roll, pitch, yaw angles Displacements Velocities Accelerations
Derived response
criteria
Human Performance
Trade-off analyses
Human Hardware Software
Task Performance
Task
Attributes
Operational Criteria
Operational Considerations
Operational Environment Description
Self – generated vibration
Design Evaluation
System Effectiveness
Standards Utility
Conclusions No standards or guidance on
◦ Sleep◦ Sopite syndrome◦ Motion induced fatigue
No standards for military passengers “Motion sickness” not just vomiting MMH standards do not include motion Limiting criteria
◦ Motion response (1st order): Many◦ Derived response (human performance): Some◦ Derived response (task related): A few
Significant gap in task specific limiting criteria ISO 2631-1:1997 vs BS 6841:1987. Differences in
◦ Methods◦ Distinguishing between methods◦ Weighting coefficients