* V. - -- 0

Research Report 1261

A SAINT MODEL OF THE AN/TSQ-73 GUIDED

MISSILE AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM

David B. Wortman and Alonzo F. Hixson III

Pritsker & Associates, Inc.

Charles C. JorgensenARI

ARI FIELD UNIT AT FORT BLISS, TEXAS

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

January 1979

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

24~ 3 3

U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

4L. NEALE COSBY

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel, IN

Technical Director Commander

Research accomplished under contractto the Department of the Army

Pritsker and Associates, Inc.

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report has been made by ARI.

Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S.Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, ATTN'

PERI-TST, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when it Is no longerneeded. Please do not return it to the U.S. Army Research Itistitue forthe Behavioral and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The findings In this report are not to be construed as an offlCisl

Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorizeddocuments.

UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE MTen D Entered) MSSLEIntermRepo

P E AREAD INSTRUCTIONSREPORT DOCUMENTATION BEFORE COMPLETING FORM1. REPORT NUMBER 82.G VTACCE STN NO. .a CIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

Research Report 1261 Woo.i nIl. y

4. TITLE (and $utitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

A SAINT MODEL OF THE AN/TSQ-73 GUIDED MISSILE Interim ReportAIR DEFENSE SYSTEM!

6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTNOR(e) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(e)

David B. Wortman and Alonzo F. Hixson IIIand Charles C. Jorgensen, ARI DAHCl9-77-M-0031

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASKAREA a WORK UNIT NUMBERS

Pritsker and Associates, Inc. and ARIField Unit, Fort Bliss, Texas 79916 2Q762722A765

I. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral January 1979and Social Sciences, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, IS. NUMBER OF PAGES

Alexandria, VA 22333 2414. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(If different from Controlling Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of thle report)

UnclassifiedI5a. DECLASSI FICATION/DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the aberact entered in Block 20, It difforenrfrom Report)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

IS. KEY WORDS (Continue on reveree ide ift neceeary and identify by block number)

SAINT MODEL Fire Unit control submodelAN/TSQ-73 System System control submodelSimulation language Model Input/OutputOperator control submodel

'Aircraft control submodelI& A1 TRACT (Cea e revers b mee" and identify by block nmber)

- he SAINT model of the AN/TSQ-73 system demonstrates the ability toincorporate the human element into a digital simulation model of a complex

command and control system. The model is extremely versatile and can be usedto evaluate the effect of both human performance characteristics and systemoperating policies on overall system effectiveness for a wide range of missionscenarios. Continuing refinement and expansion of the model will enhance its

ability to address complex issues associated with operator training as well as, the design and operation of the AN/TSQ-73 system.SD 173 amoeso OF N ov as is OSoLETED IAi - UNCLASSIFIED

i SECURIT CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Mben Doe. ,ntered)

f

UNCLASSIFIED69CUNTY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Wham Data Itmed)

f

Items 20 (Continued)

-In its present form the model can be used to systemafically vary battle-

field scenarios and study the resulting effects on operator error rates,

response times, and task performance sequences. Potential uses for an

expanded version of the model include the identification of critical tasks

based on simulated combat performance, resource or resupply bottlenecks,

and optimal use of automatic or semiautomatic operational modes. A secondyear effort is presently under way to develop improved psychological models

of target identification, track hooking operations, and fire unit message

handling.

Acez"isjn*, P.~

RTZS -A

DTIC ?AB

Just lefat L

ByrCOPY. Ava abli t, ca -g

v ,Ll~t !Special

~tat

UNCLASSIFIED

ii SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAOlEWhe n Date Entered)

IiI

Research Report 12610

A SAINT MODEL OF THE AN/TSQ-73 GUIDED

MISSILE AIR DEFENSE SYSTEMDavid B. Wortman and Alonzo F. Hixson III

Pritsker & Associates, Inc.

Charles C. JorgensenARI

Submitted by:

Michael H. Strub, ChiefARI FIELD UNIT AT FORT BLISS, TEXAS

Approved by:

E. Ralph Dusek, DirectorPersonnel and TrainingResearch Laboratory

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for PersonnelDepartment of the Army

January 1979

Army Project Number Human Factors in System20762722A765 Development and Operation

AoprOved for public Mteau: digzribution unimid.iii.

ARI Research Reports and Technical Reports are intended for sponsors ofR&D tasks and for other research and military agencies. Any findings readyfor implementation at the time of publication are presented in the last partof the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recom-mendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate militaryagencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

iv

FOREWORD

This research conducted in 1977 is part of-an ongoing effortwithin ARI to improve human operator modeling for use in Army tacticalsystem evaluations. The paper presents an implementation of the

Systems Analysis of Integrated Networks of Tasks (SAINT) simulationlanguage within a complex air defense system called the AN/TSQ-73

Missile Minder.

The unique aspects of the model concern the dynamic capturing ofhuman operator behaviors within a changing battlefield environmentand the subsequent ability to trace operator task performance interms of both time dependent and error dependent modes. The reportwill be of particular interest to analysts who are planning orconducting research related to complex man/machine interactions indynamic environments.

PHZE ERnical Director

v

A SAINT MODEL OF THE AN/TSQ-73 GUIDED MISSILE AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM

BRIEF

Requirement:

Increasing problems with evaluation of the human contribution tooverall effectiveness in linked air defense systems required the devel-opment of improved human performance modeling techniques. Because ofthe heavy man/achine mixture of task functions in developing missilecontrol systems, the AN/TSQ-73 was chosen as a test case within whichrealistic problems of operator loading, scenario difficulty, and opera-tional policy could be examined

Procedure:

Three stages of model evaluation were developed with the presentpaper representing the feasibility stage. Feasibility consisted oftranslating available system task and hardware information into SAINTcode, the development of independent submodels corresponding to operator,system computer, battlefield air space, and HAWK missile batteries. Humanpsychological processes included perceptual scanning, short term memory,and decision making. Scenario input was formatted based on menu selectionsincluding operational policy, aircraft flight paths, missile number andeffectiveness, and number of HAWK batteries.

Findings:

The SAINT model provides an effective and time efficient method tocapture complex man/machine relationships for analysis. It also servesas a conceptual matrix within which diverse psychological models ofhuman capabilities can be fused together.

Utilization of Findings:

The model has currently been updated to include advanced humanpsychological characteristics. Along with a joint effort betweenARI and the Institute for Defense Analysis, the model will be appliedas a planning tool for the development of system models within theNATO Identification Study (NIS) test bed. Anticipated uses for theexpanded model include identification of critical tasks based on simu-lated combat performance, resource or resupply bottlenecks, and optimaluse of automatic or semi-automatic operational modes. A major contracteffort is now underway to develop generalizable human operator modelsfor High and Medium Altitude Air Defense (HIMAD) and Short Range AirDefense (SHORAD) air defense systems utilizing the lessons learnedform this research.

vii

I 7 - : - -

A SAINT MODEL OF THE AN/TSQ-73 GUIDED MISSILE AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM

CONTENTS

Page

I THE AN/TSQ-73 SYSTEM .......................... 1

V THE SAINT SIMULATION LANGUAGE......................

THE ANITSQ-73 MODEL..........................I

Operator Control Submodel.....................2Aircraft Control Submodel.....................6Fire Unit Control Submodel ..................... 8System Control Submodel......................8

MODEL INPUT..............................10

MODEL OUTPUT..............................12

I REFERENCES...............................13

APPENDIX..................................15

FIGURES

Figure 1. Interaction of the four submodels and theenvironment ....................... 3

I2. Operator control submodel. ............... 4

3. Aircraft control submodel. ............... 7

I4. Fire unit control submodel ............... 9

5. System control submodel ................. 10

6. SAINT approach to network modeling and analysis .. 17

ix

A SAINT MODEL OF THE AN/TSQ-73 GUIDED MISSILE AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM

THE AN/TSQ-73 SYSTEM

The AN/TSQ-73 Missile Minder is a lightweight mobile automatic dataprocessing command and coordination system for Nike-Hercules and Hawk ArmyAir Defense units (1, 2, 3). The AN/TSQ-73 integrates radar and identifi-cation of friend or foe (IFF) data from local and remote radars for consoledisplay. Through programming of the automatic data processing alphanumerics,track and site symbols, map symbols, coordinates, and lines are generated.These data are integrated with radar and IFF data to provide the operatorwith a CRT display of aircraft and missile targets identified by track

symbols and alphanumerics, as well as alphanumeric site and map symbols*Target data, fire unit profile data, and defended point characteristics areprocessed and analyzed automatically in order to select primary and secondaryfire units and weapons type.

Tactical operation of the system is accomplished by one tacticaldirections officer and two operator/repairmen (enlisted personnel). Thesystem can be operated in a number of manual or automatic modes. Some ofthe possible modes are:

I. Air Track Identificationa. Automatic and sector scanb. Manual

2. Trackinga. Automatically initiated automatic trackingb. Manually initiated automatic trackingc. Manual, by operator

THE SAINT SIMULATION LANGUAGE

SAINT, Systems Analysis of Integrated Networks of Tasks, is a uniqueand powerful technique that is both a systems modeling vehicle and acomputer analysis tool. It is the only available technique that allowsengineers and human factors specialists to develop system models in whichmen, machines, and environmental conditions are represented as elements ofa network (4, 5, 6, 7, 8). SAINT models permit an analyst to investigatethe impact of component characteristics on overall system performancewithout a major investment in equipment and time, and without necessitatinga commitment to prototype hardware development. A further description ofSAINT may be found in the Appendix.

THE AN/TSQ-73 MODEL

The SAINT model of the AN/TSQ-73 system is designed to simulate thetasks performed by a single operator/repairman involved in monitoring andoperating the AN/TSQ-73 display console during a simulated mission.

I

LLA _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

It is comprised of four submodels: operator control, aircraft control,fire unit control, and systems control. These four submodels operaterelatively independently of one another. They communicate through the useof messages and their common environment. Messages are represented astransactions that flow among the four submodels. The environment is

represented by the current values of a number of FORTRAN variables.

The environmental variables are further divided into two groups:those which are apparent to the operator viewing the radar screen, or thesystem environment; and those which represent actual, or total, environment.The transfer of some information from the actual environment to the systemenvironment is regulated by the system's operating modes and the activityof the operator. Other information is common to both of the environmentalvariable groups. Figure 1 illustrates the interaction of the four submodelsand the environment.

Missions may be simulated in any of the operating modes identifiedpreviously. In addition, if the automatic system becomes overloaded andthe processing of data is delayed, the model has the capability of simulatingthe operator manually updating the environmental data even though thesystem is operating in an automatic mode.

OPERATOR CONTROL SUBMODEL

The operator control submodel is divided into nine operational components.Each of these components is composed of a series of tasks that represent adistinct set of operator actions. The operator is modeled as a singletransaction, or information packet, that moves from task to task throughoutthe submodel. The routing of the operator is determined by a set of taskbranching parameters. Figure 2 illustrates the precedence relationshipscontrolling the movement of the operator among the components.

The search component triggers all subsequent operator activity. Itrepresents a visual scan of the display screen by the operator to determinewhich of the tracks or sites requires his attention. The selection of atrack or site is accomplished probabilistically, where the probability ofselection is proportional to the visual stimulation that is presented by anobject on the radar scope, a threat evaluation of that specific symbol, andthe time since the symbol was last processed. For example, the operatorwould be more likely to react to a hostile target a few miles from his sitethan to a friendly target that is a great distance from his site.

There are six possible actions that the operator can initiate as aresult of scanning the display screen and selecting a symbol. Theyrepresent the processing of video data; unknown, friendly, and hostiletracks; and fire unit sites within the system environment. Tasks thatrepresent both specific operator actions (e.g., pushing a button, readinga message) and operator decisions (e.g., should processing of a symbolbegin now or be delayed) are included in these components. Further, user-written moderator functions are used to represent variations in reactionand decision times as well as errors in judgment and mechanical act;-throughout the operator control submodel.

2

Aircraft

Acua

Environment

System Oeao

\ //\ " Fire /\ " " Unit /

- Information Path

• Message Path

Figure 1. Interaction of the Four Submodels and the Environment

3

S.- . . .. .0

~Search

Video

Hoke

Unknow

,HookIEngag

Figur2.Oeratre Contluboe

I Hooke

t ________--Idle-- Tim

The video component of the operator control submodel handles operator

processing of the video data that appears on the display. The operatormust first recognize and identify the symbol. Then he must decide if thisvideo data is a track and, if so, whether the track requires manual initiali-zation. If it does, the environment is updated to reflect the change instatus.

The processing of tracks that are currently classified as unknown is

modeled in another component. This procedure requires the operator toobserve and recognize the symbol as an unknown track and then decide if anyaction should be taken. If action is taken, the operator attempts toestablish the identification of the track as either friendly or hostile.Upon completion of this process, the new status of the track may necessitaltefurther action by the operator, i.e., the operator is routed directly tothe component processing friendly or hostile tracks. This is accomplishedwithout the operator returning to the search task and reflects a continuousprocessing of the track by the operator. As operator actions change thestatus of the system, the environment is updated accordingly.

Another component of the operator control submodel represents theoperator observing and processing a hostile track. In this component, theoperator checks to see if the track is currently being engaged by a fireunit. If it is not and the current operating policy indicates that thetrack should be assigned to a fire unit, the operator is directed to the

engagement component.

The assignment of a fire unit to a track is accomplished within theengagement component and is simulated in any of three possible modes:manual, semi-automatic, or fully automatic. The operator or system isrequired to choose a valid fire unit to be assigned to the given track,that is, the track that initiated the action in this component. Oncethe assignment is made, a message is sent to the fire unit submodel tobegin processing the track.

Friendly tracks that appear on the scope may also require processing.In the component that processes friendly tracks, a check is made to determineif a friendly track is currently being engaged by a fire unit. This wouldbe a result of a previous classification of the track as hostile. If so,the operator informs the fire unit control submodel of this situationthrough the generation of a cease-engagement message.

The effectiveness of the fire units during their engagemient processmust be regularly monitored by the operator so that he may continue toprocess tracks correctly. The fire unit component of the operator controlsubmodel models the two-way communication link between the operator and thefire units involved in the mission.

Another component is accessed repeatedly by the operator controlcomponents described above. It represents a series of tasks performedby the operator to "hook" a displayed symbol. Hooking is used to identifya specific track or fire unit to the system's computer. There are fourmethods in which hooking can be accomplished (tab, sequence, symbol number,

or coordinates), and the capability to simulate any of these is included

5

in the model. Hooking involves the operator positioning a computer-drawn circle over toe specified symbol on the display screen. The fourmethods reflect the alternative mechanical processes that are available tothe operator to accomplish this task.

The last component of the operator control submodel represents the

time spent by the operator in the idle state. When in this state, theoperator gives no attention to the radar system or its environment. Thetime spent by the operator in this component is dependent upon the currentstatus of the overall threat environment of the system.

AIRCRAFT CONTROL SUBMODEL

Aircraft tracks are generated, controlled, and identified in thisdistinct submodel. The flow of information in this submodel is illustratedin Figure 3. The number of aircraft as well as their headings, speed andIFF classifications are provided as data input to the model. During thesimulation, this submodel maintains the current status of these variables.

SAINT has the capability to model variables whose values change

continuously over time. Aircraft position and distance from a site are

represented by these continuous variables. The values of the state variablesare updated continuously by evaluating algebraic equations involving theaircraft's current position and speed. These quantities are then availableto be used as parameters in both policy and environmental decision-making

throughout the model.

SAINT also provides the capability, through the use of monitors,to continually compare the values of specified state variables againstprescribed threshold functions. A monitor will automatically locate thetime that a state variable "crosses" the threshold value of the referencefunction, compute the values of the state variable at that time, andinitiate a specified action. Thus, monitors provide a convenient method ofupdating the display parameters that are used in the search task. Theseparameters reflect the priority or threat value assigned to a hostile trackas it approaches a target.

The initial processing of identification Friend or Foe (IFF) datais also controlled by this submodel. If an identification change isprocessed, the submodel checks to see if both the actual and system environ-ments should be updated. If the system is in a manual mode, only theactual status will be updated. This information is then used at a latertime by the operator to manually update the system environment. If thesystem is operating in an automatic mode, both the actual and systemenvironments are updated. New identification information would then beavailable to the operator. If the identification status of a track changes,an appropriate message is sent to the operator control submodel.

6

wit IN I -m

Trac

Updat

* ID

Environment

StateI Variables

Figure 3. Aircraft Control Submodel

7

FIRE UNIT CONTROL SUBMODEL

The fire unit control submodel represents the activity of all fireunits included in the model. Fire unit control processing is illustratedin Figure 4. Messages received from the operator and system controlsubmodels are routed through the fire unit message processing tasks to theappropriate fire unit activity tasks. Messages are directed to a specificfire unit. Therefore, the fire unit submodel must interpret the messageand initiate or terminate the proper activity for the specified fireunit.

The activities of the fire units are represented by five tasks.Current conditions are updated and checked at these tasks and proceduresare initiated that continue the engagement process or terminate action.For example, the system will stop processing at the firing stage if thefire unit has received a hold fire message. This does not terminate theengagement of the fire unit to the track but only delays further actionitil the target moves within range.

SYSTEM CONTROL SUBMODEL

The system control submodel represents the activities of the AN/TSQ-73

system and fire unit computers. Figure 5 illustrates the information flowamong these activities. At regular time intervals, this submodel monitorsselected automatic procedures. The number of checks actually made isdependent upon the automatic/manual modes of operation selected.

When accessed, this submodel reviews all tracks to determine if theircurrent status and the current system operating policies are reflected inthe operation of the other submodels. For example, a review is made forchanges in track classifications. It is possible that a track that wasoriginally classified as hostile or unknown has been reclassified asfriendly. If this track is currently assigned to a fire unit, a cease fire

message is sent to the fire unit control submodel.

The system environment is also reviewed to determine if any of theexisting unassigned tracks should be assigned to a fire unit. The assess-ment is made based on the track's identification (both hostile and unknowntracks may be engaged), distance to a target, and evaluated threat to atarget. If an engagement is made, a message is sent to the fire unitcontrol section.

This submodel also monitors the status of all fire units. It ispossible that a fire unit may engage a track at a range that is outside itsfiring window. If so, processing of the track is interrupted until thefiring window requirements are sat.isfied. Once the track has entered thefiring window, the submodel signals the fire unit to continue with theengagement. If a change in the track's flight path indicates it will nolonger fly within range of the assigned fire unit, a cease fire message issent to the fire unit control section.

8

Nmoo

/ System \ [ Operator N

S- Control Control / ]Message-

Control

Fire Unit

Activities

Fire Unit

Output

/ System N

Environment/

Figure 4. Fire Unit Control Submodel

9k

/

A /~

' Operator NControl

-

Figure 5. System Control Submodel

S

It is possible that the system control submodel will change the status/

identification of the symbol that the operator is currently processing.

This must be reflected by an immediate change in the activities of the

operator. When such a change occurs, the system control component interrupts

the operator and restarts his processing of the symbol under its new

classification. This is accomplished by releasing the operator from the

task he is currently performing and routing him to the appropriate task.

MODEL INPUT

The SAINT model is translated via specified formats into a set of

data cards that are read by the SAINT simulation program. These data cards

contain all of the information necessary to represent and analyze the

model. As an example, consider the following data representing the obser-

vation of a hostile track by the operator:

TAS, 25, OBSHOST, 1, 1, DS, 9,(16) 1*

MOD, 25, 8, A,,10, A*

STA, 25 (5) BET, STA, 10, 0., 30.*

UTC, 25,,,50.,.8,0.*ATA, 25 COM, SA, 0, 1, UF, 13,

SA, 0, 7, SC, -1*

PRO, 25,SA, 0, 1, 1,15, 2,26, 3*

10

The data cards shown identify the time required for the operator toobserve the track symbol, recognize the meaning of the symbol, and decideif further action is required. They are also used to control the resource

required to perform the task, the preparation of detailed processinginformation, the collection of statistics related to the task, and theselection of the next task to be performed. Each task in the model is

similarly described.

System operating policies are also specified on data cards. Forexample, one policy states that if a hostile aircraft is greater than50 miles from the defended site, no operation action is required 80% of the

time. However, if the track is within the 50 mile range, operator actionis essential. This policy is reflected in the following data:

UTC, 25,,,60,50,.8,0.*

if the analyst wishes to evaluate a change in the above policy so that theoperator will never take action if the aircraft is outside 60 miles,always take action if it is inside 40 miles, and possibly take action(proportional to its range within the interval) if the track is between40 and 60 miles, the data card would read as follows:

UTC,25,,,50,40,1.,0.*

The majority of the operating policies included in the model may bealtered in this manner, allowing a straightforward examination of policyoptions.

Mission information is also input on data cards. The data providedcontrols the attack scenario that is flown against the operator. The

information required includes:

1. Initial automatic/manual operating mode selection

2. Fire unit characteristics

a. Location

b. Armament

c. Effectiveness

3. Track characteristics

a. Flight path information

(i) Heading

(ii) Speed

b. Identification information

This information is varied in order to evaluate operator response to

a wide variety of situations.

11

-~~~

---------

MODEL OUTPUT

The model provides two forms of output. The first is an operator

activity trace. This trace includes the specific task being performed by

the operator and the track number and/or fire unit number involved in this

action. In addition, the current identification status of all tracks and

the current activity status of all fire units is-included. The tracing of

any task is accomplished by the insertion of a single line of code in the

SAINT input cards. For example, task 25 is traced as a result of including

the following data card:

MOD,25,B,A,,

In this manner, the trace can be designed to satisfy changing analysisrequirements.

Following the trace output is a series of statistical reports that

represents a variety of system performance measures. These are divided

into four categories:

I. SAINT-generated task statistics

2. User-generated statistics based on observation

3. User-generated statistics based on time

4. User-generated histograms

The statistics to be collected are also specified using data cards.

For example, the following data card causes a statistical summary andassociated histogram to be prepared for the time between performance oftask 25 (observation of a hostile track):

STA,25,(5),BET,STA,lIO,0.,30.*

This data card, along with five other similar cards, causes the collection

of statistics concerning the time between the execution of the submodelsshown in Figure 1. These statistics are useful in establishing prioritiesand policies needed to improve operator performance.

The collection of user-generated statistics is controlled by a user-

supplied FORTRAN function. Changes in the statistics to be collected

require minor changes to the FORTRAN code and the addition of associated

data cards. The observation statistics are currently being used to recordthe execution time of each task or selected groups of tasks performed by

the operator as well as the time required by the fire units to react toselected system inputs. This information is displayed graphically in the

user-generated histograms. The time-based statistics are used as the basisfor evaluating the effectiveness of the operator. They represent thepercentage of time that the operator is late in responding to system status

changes. Time-based statistics are also used to record the maount of time

that each fire unit is active.

12

-I; 77 Z.

REFERENCES

1. DTM 9-1425650-12, Operator's and Organizational Maintenance Manual:Overall System Description (Guided Missile Air Defense SystemAN/TSQ-73), October 1977.

2. DEP TM 9-1430-652-10-3, Operator's Manual: Chapter 4 - OperatingProcedures (Guided Missile Air Defense System AN/TSQ-73), January1976.

3. ST 44-196-73A, Operation and Maintenance Reference Handbook (AN/TSQ-73),

January 1976.

4. Wortman, D. C., S. D. Duket, R. L. Hann, G. P Chubb, and D. J. Shifert,

Simulation Using SAINT: A User-Oriented Instruction Manual, AMRL-TR-77-61, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air

Force Base, Ohio, June 1978.

5. Wortman, D. B., S. D. Duket, D. J. Siefert, R. L. Hann, and G. P. Chubb,The SAINT User's Manual, AMRL-TR-77-62, Aerospace Medical ResearchLaboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, June 1978.

6. Duket, S. D, D. B. Wortman, D. J. Siifert, R. L. Hann, and G. P. Chubb,

Documentation for the SAINT Simulation Program, AMRL-TR-77-63,Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air ForceBase, Ohio, June 1978.

7. Duket, S. D., D. B. Wortman, R. L. Hann, G. P. Chubb, and D. J. Siefert,Analyzing SAINT Output Usigg SPSS, AMRL, TR-77-64, Aerospace Medical

Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, June 1978.

8. Wortman, D. B., S. D. Duket, and D. J. Siefert, "Modeling and AnalysisUsing SAINT: A Combined Discrete/Continuous Network SimulationLanguage," Proceedings of the 1977 Winter Simulation Conference,Washington, D.C., December 1977.

9. Wortman, D. B., S. D. Duket, and D. J. Siefert, SAINT Simulation of aRemotely Piloted Vehicle/Drone Control Facility: Model Developmentand Analysis, AMRL-TR-75-118, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory,Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, June 1976.

10. Duket, S. D., D. B. Wortman, and D. J. Seifert, SAINT Simulation of a

Remotely Piloted Vehicle/Drone Control Facility: Technical Documentation,AMRL-TR--75-119, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-PattersonAir Force Base, Ohio, June 1976.

11. Wortman, D. B., S. D. Duket, and D. J. Siefert, "Simulation of a RemotelyPiloted Vehicle/Drone Control Facility Using SAINT," Proceedings of the

1975 Summer Computer Simulation Conference, San Francisco, San Francisco,July 1974.

13

-t*

" iill

12. Wortman, D. B., S. D. Duket, and D. J. Seifert, "SAINT Simulationof a Remotely Piloted Vehicle/Drone Control Facility," Proceedingsof the 19th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, Dallas,

October 1975.

13. Askren, W. B., W. B. Campbell, D. J. Seifert, T. H. Hall, R. C.Johnson, and R. H. Sulzen, Feasibility of a Computer Simulation Methodfor Evaluating Human Effects on Nuclear Systems Safety, AFWL-TR-76-15,Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico,May 1976.

14. Hann, R. L., and G. G. Kuperman, "SAINT Model of a Choice Reaction TimeParadigm," Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Human FactorsSociety, Dallas, October 1975.

15. Kuperman, G. G., and D. J. Seifert, "Development of Computer SimulationModel for Evaluating DAIS Display Concepts," Proceedings of the 19thAnnual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, Dallas, October 1975.

16. Maltas, K. L., and J. R. Buck, "Simulation of a Large Man/MachineProcess Control System in the Steel Industry," Proceedings of the

19th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, Dallas, October,1975.

17. Wortman, D. B., C. E. Sigal, A. A. B. Pritsker, and D. J. Seifert,New SAINT Concepts and the SAINT II Simulation Program, AMRL-TR-74-119,Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air ForceBase, Ohio, April 1975.

14

MWIMUM--- -0--

APPENDIX

SAINT has been designed, developed, and applied in modeling and analyzingsystems in which resources (men and machines) perform tasks subject tophysical and environmental constraints. It satisfies the need for agraphical approach to the modeling and analysis of systems which containprocedural, risk, and random elements. For engineers and human factorsspecialists, SAINT provides modeling capabilities similar to those providedby circuit diagrams for electrical engineers, signal flow graphs, and blockdiagrams for systems analysts, and PERT/CPM networks for project managers.Further, it provides automatic model analysis capabilities via the SAINTsimulation program.

The SAINT philosophy is to separate the modeling process from theanalysis process. A graphical approach to modeling is taken in which thesystem to be analyzed is represented by a network model. The network modelfacilitates communication regarding the characteristics of the system andalso serves as the basis for subsequent system analysis. The SAINT approachto network modeling and analysis is depicted in Figure 6.

A SAINT network model is developed using symbols contained in theSAINT symbol set. The fundamental elements of SAINT networks are tasks,

resources (personnel and/or equipment) required to perform tasks, relation-ships among tasks, and system status variables referred to as state variables.System performance is related to which tasks are performed, the manner inwhich they are initiated, utilization of the system resources, and theextent to which certain states of the system are achieved or maintained.The SAINT symbol set provides the tools required to build models of systemsin which resources perform tasks to accomplish system objectives.

In addition to providing a flexible set of symbols which are integratedto form a network model of the system under study, the SAINT modelingapproach allows for the specification of the conditions and constraintsunder which the system operates. These conditions and constraints mayinclude such factors as time constraints on resources and the environment

within which the tasks must be performed. By providing the means forspecifying such conditions and constraints, SAINT allows the analyst todepict system performance in a variety of situations.

The application of SAINT is extending into many diverse areas, partic-ularly in situations where the inclusion of the human component in a modelis required to ensure valid analysis results. It is gaining a wide acceptanceby systems modelers and analysts of many disciplines. The following areexamples of modeling and analysis efforts involving the use of SAINT:

Analysis of a remotely piloted vehicle/drone control facility (9, 10,II, 12)

Analysis of communication frequency utilization in a railroad switchingyard.

Safety analysis of nuclear systems (13)

15

Investigation of psychological theory (14)

Analysis of multi-function switching and multi-purpose displayconcepts (15)

Analysis of process capacity and resource utilization in the steelindustry (16)

Analysis of in-flight aircraft refueling operations (17)

Scheduling of experiments for the Spacelab

Determination of crew survivability/vulnerability in a nuclearenvironment

Evaluation of navigation and electronic warfare officer performancein B-52 missions

16

L

I.o

System Experience and

Description Knowledge

Modeling Symbols

Network Model

IData Input Cards

SaintCoptrAasiSimulation CofuewrkayiProgram o ewr

0 0

o 0o Measures of 0

o System 00 Performance q0 0o0 0

Figure 6. SAINT Approach to Network Modeling and Analysis

17

DISTRIBUTION

I US AmMY WESTERN LaMMAND iITN: AP+L1 DEP~ARTMENT OF THE NAVY THAININb ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION (URUUP

I ~ I HQI)A ATTN: UAAt-,r11 HIW, ICATA AITN: ATCAT-UP-w? HIUJA RESEARCH AN) STUDIL.S UF-(I MILliARY UCCUPA113NAL ULVLLUPMENI DIV DAPC-MSP-U. RM R52C HOFFMAN BLUG 14 OASD (NRA AND L)1 Hu TLATA TECHiNICAL LIbRARI

I HQ,)A ODCSPLR'II HQO)A ATTN: IAMI-ISiI IJSA AVIATION SYSTEMS CUMU ATI1N DRSAV-LilkI USA i.ORADCOM ArTTN: AMSt.L-PA-R"

1 1USA~ mRRADCOM ATTNJ: ATFt-LU-ACI HE DUUARTLRS US) MARINE CUt*PS AITN: CJO~. M7MII HEA~uUARTEPS, US 4IARINE CORPS ATTN: CUDE_ mPI-2O

SUS AmMY EUROPE AND SEVENTH ARMYI ISr INFANTRY 01VISION AND FT. RILEY ATTN: AFZN-UPT-TIUSA~ iNTELL1t6ENI- AND SECURITY COMMAND ATTN: IAOPS-TNG-THO' T.mAUC TtCHwICAL LIHRAHY

I NAVAL TRAINING tUJIPMENT LEN AlTN: TECHNICAL LIURA&RYI MILIIARY OCCUPATIONAL DLVLLOPMFNI UIRLLTOHATL ATTN: ATZI-NCR-MS-M. R4 3N33 "OFFmAN BLDG 111 DATA ANALYSIS DIVISION AIIN: 41LI-NCR-Mo. HOFFMAN BLDG I1I USA mILPEHCEN A~TTN: UAPC-POO-TI MT'1 jNFANTRY UIVISION1 H00A ARMY FORCE %iODLRNILAlIUN CUURDl'JATIUN OFFICEI HU)A ATTN: DAb,-PTB1 NAVAL AIR SYSTEM COMMAND1 1230 U5ARCOM HtSERVL- CtNIER1 (1S Ae.MY SOLOIEN SJPPuRT CENTER/1 USA i-URCES COMMAN) Al-LI - ULPIAI1Y LHIEF OF STAFF FUR LOGISTICS1 0D 4ELTONATE OF fkAININb. AITN. ATZW-TI DiqEt-TORAIE OF CU'WJAl UEVLLOPMFNTS AFT1N: ATZQ-D1 HODAKLOM MARINE CORPS LIAISON UFCI DEPAP(TMENI OF- TE ARMY US ARMY IN1LLLIOFNCL + SECURITY COMMAND1 (JSA mISSILF COMMAND ATTN: URSMI-NIN1 '-A5 AKMY CECON AT TN: UkSEL-ATUI,I USA s-ORCE5 CUMMANOI PM THADE/I US MihLITARY DIzoTHICT OF WASHINt,(UN DEC OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITYI NAVAL CIVILIAN PERSONNEL CUND SUUJHERN FLU DIV

22 ANI LIAISON OFFICEI FTH ARMY TRAINII., COMMANDI HQUA. DCSOPS UNIT THA1N1NllI HWOA. DCSOPS TRAINING DINECTURATEI HUDA. DCSLOG MAINTIENANCE MANAGEtMENTI HQUA. OCS STULJY OFFICE1 U.S. NAVY TRAININb ANALYSIS LVALUAIIJN GROUPI USAC&UEC ATTN: 4TEC-EX-E HUMAN FACTORS1 ATTN; SN-ALC/UPCRI OASA (RUA) DEPUTY FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYI OFC uF NAVAL RESEARCH/1 AFIIRL/LRTI AFMRL/LRLDyI AIR PORCE HUMAN RESUURCES LAb ATTN: AFHRLTSR

1 AF4MiiL/138I NAVY PERSONNEL W AND U CENTIER uIHLCT3N OF PROGRAMS1 NAVY PERSONNEL R AND) U CENTER /?' OFC uF NAVAL Rk.SEARCH PERSONNEL AND TRAINING RESEARCH PROGRAMSI NAVAL PERSONNEL H # D CENIER /I OFC uF NAVAL RF.,EAHCH PRUJECT Ul-FICER9 FNVIkONMENTAL PHYSIOLOGY1 OFC uF NAVAL RSlCH ORGANILATlUNAL EFFECTIVENESS PRO.

19

FfiEC3D1W PAGE BLANK-.NOT 71USD

2I NAVAL AEROSPACE MEDICAL RSLH LAb ALRdORNE RANGER RESEARCHI NAVAL AEROSPACE MEDICAL kSLH LAB AEROSPACE PSYCHOLOGy DEPARTMENT1 USA IRADOC SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY ATTN: ATAA-TCA1 HEAIwUARTERS, LOAST UUARU CHIEF1- PSYCHOLOGICAL RSCH BPI USA mESEARCH ANu TECHNOLUbY LAH /1 USA tNGINEER TUPOGAPHIC LASS ATTN: ETL-(,SLI USA MOBILITY EUIJIIMENT R AND U LUMU ATTN: DRUME-TQ (SCHOOL)1 FT. oELVOIR9 VA 220601 ATrN; ATTb-ATB-TAI US iUMAN ENGINEEWING LABi USA MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY ATTN: DRXSY-C

1 USA ARCTIC TEST CEN ATTN: AMSTL-PL-TSI USA LOLD REGIONS TEST C'EN ATTN: STECR-OpI LISA LUNCEPTS ANALYSIS AOCY ATTNI CSCA-RQPI USA LONCEP7S ANALYSIS AGCY AT'WN: CSCA-JFI USACACDA ATTN: ATZL-CAC-LCI USACmCDA ATTN: ATZL-CAC-IMI USACAC ATTN: ATZL-CAC-IAI USACACDA ATTN: ATZL-CAC-A

I USA oSCH DEVEL * SIANUARDIZA GP, U.K.I USA mESEARCH ANTD DEVLLOPMLNT LAB5 CHIEF, BEHAV SCIENCES DIV, FOOD SCI LAB1 JRAJmNA ATTN: SAJS-ORI NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND ATTN: AIR-5313I USaCuEC TECHNICAL INFURMATION CENTERI USAAHL LIBRARYI USA IRAI)OC SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY ATTN: ATAA-SL (TECH LIRARY)1 UNIFuRMED SERVICLS UNIT O THE HEALTH SCI DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY) USA LOMPUTER SYSIMS COMMAND AITNI COMMAND TECHNICAL LIBRARY H-9I GRONINGER LIBRARY ATTN: IZP-RS-L BLDG 1313I CENTtR FOR NAVAL ANALYSIS1 NAVAL HEALTH RSCH CEN LIBRARYI NAVAL PERSONNEL R AND U CEN LIBRARY ATTN: CODE P0obI AIR PORCE HUMAN RESOURCES LAB ATTN: AFHRL/OTSI HU, PT. HUACHULA ATTN: TLCH RFI DIVI USA ACADEMY OF HEALTH SCIENCES ST1IMSON LIBRARV (DOCUMENTS)I SCHOuL OF SYSTLmS AND LOGISTICS /I DEPAHTMENT OF THE NAVY TRAINING ANALYSIS ANU EVALUATION GPI USNIA DEPT OF BFHAVIORAL SLI AND LEADERSHIP1 USA LOMMAND ANU GENERAL SIAFF COLLEGE ATTN: LIBRARYI USA iRANSPORTAIIO' SCHOOL USA THANSP TECH INFO AND RSCH CENI I)SA UDMINCEN TECMNICAL RESEARCH BRANCH LIBRARY

I USA t-IELU ARTY HU /I INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSESI USA iRAINING SUPPORT CENTER ATIN: ATIC-OST-PA1 AFHRL TECHNOLOOY DFC (H)I USA 4mOBILITY EWUI2MENT R AND u CUMMANO ATTN$ DRUME-ZGI I)A Ub ARMY RETHAININU BUt RESEANCH + EVALUATION DIVISIONI US MiLITARY ACA0E'4Y UEPT. OF HiTORY, BLDG 601I MARIE CORPS INSTITUTEI NAVAL SAFETY CENTEH /1 GALLAUDET COLLLbE LEARNINO CENTERI IJSAAvNC AND FT. RJCKER ATIN: AfrG-ES) US AwMY AVN INU LIHRARY AITN: CHIEF LIBRARIANI USA AIR DEFENSE SCHOOL ATTN; AISA-UTI USAAVNC ATTN: AITZ-U1 US MILITARY ACADEMY DIRECIOR OF INSTITUTIONAL RSCHi USA AIR DEFENSE SCHOOL ATTNI AISA-CD-MSI tSAAuS-LIBRARY-DOCUMENTSI iSA AIR DEFENSL BOARD ATIN: FILES REPOSITORY1 USA INFANTRY BOARD ATTN; ATZB-Iu-AE

*I USA LINTELLIGENCE CEN ANDU hLH ATTN: ATbI-0T-SVL1 USA URDNANCE CEN AND SCH ATTNI ATSL-TU-TAC

20

1 USA ARMOR SCHOOL ATTN: AILK-Ti) 2I USA ARMOR CENTE.N DIRECTORATE OF COMBAT DEVELOPMENTS do

I NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCH AIIN: OUULLY KNOX LIBRARY (COOE 1424)I USiA IRANSPORTAITUN SCHOOL DEPUTY ASST* COMMANOANT EDUCA. TECHNOLOG'YI USA~ :3IGNAL SCHOOL ANU FT. uOkuoN ATT4: ATZH-E7I USA wUARTERMASILR SCH AT IN: ATbm-ING-[M-ETI USA MILITARY POLICE SCHOOL AITNs LIBRARYI USA ARMOR CENTL.N + FT. KNOX OFFICL OF AkmOR FORCE MGT + STANUARDIZATION1 CHIEiF OF NAVAL EUJCAfIOj uNU TN('I UJSA IGNAL SCHOOL + FT. 6UHDON LDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISIONIHO AiC/XPTD TRAI\JINU, SYSIEMS U)LVE-LOP,4NT

1 1151 iNSTITUTE FoR MILITARY ASSTSTANCE ATTN: ATSU-TD-TA~USA iNTELLIGENLE CEN ANU )LH AlTTN: ATSI-ERM1 US AHMY ARMOR CENTER ATTN: ATtP'-TU-P4U(I USA AIR DEFENSE CENTER, FT. bLISS ATTN: ATZC-0IMI USA wUARTERMASTEH SCHOOL UINR.CIURATL OF TRAINING DEVELOPMENTSI US CIJAST GUARD ACADEMY/

TiI USA IRANSPORTArION SCHOOL DIREIURATE OF TRAINING * DOCTRINEI USA INFANTRY SCHUDL LIB3RARY/I USA INFANTRY SCHODL ATTN: ATSH-i-VI US ANMY INFANTRy SCHOOL ATTN: ATSH-C)1 US4 INFANTRY SCMOJL ATTN: ATSm-UO1-LRU1 USA INFANTRY SCHOOL ATTN: A7SH-LVI USI vlP + CHEM SCH/ING CEN + FT. MCCLELLAN ATTN: ATZN-PTSI USA 14P + CHEM SCH/TNGj CEN * FT. MCCLELLAN DIRi COMBAT DEVELOPMENTI LISA MiP + CHEM SCH/TNG CEN + FT. MCCLELLAN OIRr TRAINING DEVELOPMENTI USA imP + CHEM bCHTNti CEN + FT. MCCLEL-LAN ATITN: ATZN-mp-ACEI USA INSTITUTE OF. AUMINISTRTION~ ATTN: RE-SIDENT TRAINING MANAGEMENTI USA teiELO ARTILLER~Y SCHOOL MORRIS SWETT LIBRARYI USA iNSTITuTE OF AIMINIsTHATION ACADEMIC LIBRARYI USA wAR COLLEGE ATTN: LIORARYI USA tNGINLER SLH-jDL LIRRY ANL) LEARNING RESOURCES CENTERI UiSA ARMOR SCHOOL (USARMS) ATTN: LIBRARY1 US CUAST GUARD ACADEMY LIBRARY1 USA IRANSPORTAFIOJ SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION SCHOOL LIBRARYI OR3iAoiZATIONAL EFFECTIVENLSS CEN + SCrI ATTN: LIBRARIANI US AKMY INTELLIGEvCE CENT~.N + SLHOOL ATTN: ATSI-TP1 US AMMY INTELLIGENCE CLNTtR + SCHOOL ATTN: ATSI-RM-M1 US AtMY INTELL16E'JCE CENTER + SCHOOL ATTN: ATSI-ESI USA rIELU ARTILLERY SCHOOL DIRECTURATE OF COURSE 0EV + TRAININGI OEP4TMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR UNIVERSITY LIORARY (ATC)I HU THADOC TR41ING UEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE2 BRITISH EMBASSY 3RIIISH DEFENCL STAFF;? CANAuIAN JOINT STAFF1 COLS (W) LI8RANY1 FRENLH ARMY ATTAC-IEI AUSTRIAN EMBASSY DEFENSE, MILITARY AND AIR ATTACHE3 CANALJIAN DEFENCE LIAISON STAFF ATTN: COUNSELLOR, DEFENCE R AND D1 ROYAL NETHERLANOS EMBASSY MILITARY ATTACHEI CANAUIAN FORCES t3ASE CORNWALLIS ATTN: PERSONNEL SELECTION2 CANAuIAN FORCES PERSONNEL APPL RSCH UNITI ARAY PERSONNEL RESEARCH ESTABLISHM#ENT6 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS EXCHANGE ANU GIFT uTV1 DEFEw'SE TECHNICAL INFORMATION LEN ATTN: DTIC-DDA-2

140 LI4R^RY OF CONGRESS UNIT DOCUMLNTS EXPEDITING PROJECTI US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFC LIRRARY, PUBLIC DOCUMENTS DEPARTMENTI US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFC LIBRARY AND STATUTORY, LIS DIV (SLL)I THE ARMY LIBRARY ATTN: ARMY STUDIES SEC