MEP design: Evaluation of Pragmatic design: Evaluation of Pragmatic Value Rolf Skjong (DNV), Loic Courcoux ... 2. Background of the project ... report is assessing the pragmatic value of the project

Download MEP design: Evaluation of Pragmatic   design: Evaluation of Pragmatic Value Rolf Skjong (DNV), Loic Courcoux ... 2. Background of the project ... report is assessing the pragmatic value of the project

Post on 08-Mar-2018

214 views

Category:

Documents

2 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • BriteEuram project 97-4229 MEPdesign WP4b

    Det Norske Veritas AS (DNV)andInstitut Franais de Navigation(IFN)

    MEP design:Evaluation of PragmaticValue

    Rolf Skjong (DNV), Loic Courcoux (IFN)

    May 29th , 2001

  • MEPdesign Pragmatic Value, Draft Version of April 4th 2001

    MEPdesign, BE97-4229, BRPR-CT97-587 Page 2 of 47

    TABLE OF CONTENT1. Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................... 32. Background of the project ................................................................................................................................... 33. The Current and emerging Regulations for Life Saving Appliances and Evacuation ......................................... 5

    3.1 DOCUMENTS OF REFERENCE : ............................................................................................................. 53.2 MARITIME SAFETY COMMITTEE POLICY........................................................................................... 63-3 SUB-COMMITTEE ON FIRE PROTECTION ACTIVITIES, FP 45 (January 01).................................... 6

    4. Modern Regulatory Framework - General........................................................................................................... 75. The Current and emerging Regulations in General Use of Risk assessment (FSA) ....................................... 106. Evaluation of Project Results ............................................................................................................................ 13

    6.1 Assessment of Results from Each Work Package ....................................................................................... 14WORK PACKAGE 1a, GUIDANCE................................................................................................................ 14WORK PACKAGE 1b, DESIGN FEATURES ................................................................................................ 14WORK PACKAGE 1c, SHIP MOTION........................................................................................................... 15WORK PACKAGE 2a, GUIDANCE................................................................................................................ 16WORK PACKAGE 2b DESIGN FEATURES ................................................................................................. 18WORK PACKAGE 2c, INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS/GROUP BINDING ...................................................... 19WORK PACKAGE 2d, EVACUATION .......................................................................................................... 20WORK PACKAGE 3a, ASSEMBLY MODEL................................................................................................ 23WORK PACKAGE 3b, EVACUATION MODEL........................................................................................... 28WORK PACKAGE 3c, ASSEMBLY & EVACUATION ................................................................................ 30WORK PACKAGE 4a, EXERCISE AT SEA................................................................................................... 30WORK PACKAGE 4b, EVALUATION .......................................................................................................... 326.2 Other ongoing Research with aims similar to MEPdesign .......................................................................... 33

    Australian Research Project........................................................................................................................... 33Japanese Project ............................................................................................................................................ 33French Project and Exercise .......................................................................................................................... 33Canadian Coastguard and UKs Maritime and Coastguard Agency project carried out by BMT ReliabilityConsultants and Canadian company Fleet Technology Ltd........................................................................... 35Strathclyde/Deltamarin project on evacuation simulation ............................................................................. 36United States Project - Guidance for computer- aided evacuation analysis tools.......................................... 37German Project - Draft Guidelines for a microscopic evacuation analysis of ro-ro passenger ships andHigh Speed Passenger Craft ....................................................................................................................... 37

    6.3 Overall Evaluation MEPdesign ................................................................................................................... 386.4 Gap List ....................................................................................................................................................... 39

    7 LIST OF REPORTS AND PAPERS.................................................................................................................. 418 OTHER REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................... 44ANNEX: Development of FSA since 1999 ............................................................................................................. 45

  • MEPdesign Pragmatic Value, Draft Version of April 4th 2001

    MEPdesign, BE97-4229, BRPR-CT97-587 Page 3 of 47

    1. Abstract

    The present report is an evaluation of the pragmatic value of the project MEPdesign:Mustering & Evacuation of Passengers. In addition to evaluation of each work-package, andhow well the project delivered as planned, an evaluation of the project irrespectively of theplans is also made. This is what is understood by pragmatic value.

    Efforts have been made to distinguish between these two types of evaluation. The projectis only formally responsible for carrying out what is planned. However, everyone that are notinvolved in the project will only be interested in how useful the results are, and are lessinterested in how well this corresponded to the plan. In research it is well known that some ofthe most successful projects are successful because more interesting results than initiallyproposed in the project plans are identified.

    The report starts by describing the background for the project, and goes on with adescription of the general trend in developing rules for life saving appliances and evacuation,including a description of modernisation of the regulations by use of risk analysis (formalsafety assessment).

    Thereafter the report reviews the various work packages of the project one by one,including a description of projects with aims similar to MEPdesign. The report ends withlisting the main achievements, a final evaluation and a gap list.

    2. Background of the project

    In emergencies, passengers should assemble at their assembly (mustering) stations. Fromthe assembly stations, the passengers can reach the embarkation stations, and leave the ship inthe event that this is necessary. Mustering, embarkation, abandon ship, and survival at sea arecritical for successful evacuation.

    In order to limit the consequences of the emergency, mustering and evacuation shouldproceed in a fast and orderly fashion. National and international regulations are increasinglystricter in this respect and, secondly, prescribe norms on total evacuation performance ratherthan on the performance of isolated parts of the system. In order to document compliance withsuch performance standards some form of formulas or software is necessary; otherwise realexercises would be required, as is the case with High Speed Crafts. Also in the case ofdocumentation of compliance by real exercises, some other predictive tool is necessary, as noowner would build a ship and run the risk of failing a compliance test.

    With the use of software simulation, the behavioural aspects must be included to berealistic. The industry needs new design features as well as new methods to comply withregulations and standards in a cost-effective way. Many computer models that predictmustering and evacuation as a function of time are promising tools, but they fall short ofreality because they neglect passenger behaviour, and ignore ship motion completely.Moreover, they can not easily address the effects of new design features, as the effect of newfeatures on human behaviour is not modelled.

    The aim of the MEPdesign basic research project was to study the effect of new designfeatures such as intuitive systems for guiding the passengers; corridors and stairs that offerimproved walkability in a moving or a listed/heeled ship. These effects were assessed underrealistic ship-motion and behavioural conditions such as group binding. The data is madeavailable in reports but also in the form of improved tools (computer programs) for theprediction of mustering and evacuation. The approach is based on a combination ofbehavioural and technical expertise. The outcomes of the project have been tested and this

  • MEPdesign Pragmatic Value, Draft Version of April 4th 2001

    MEPdesign, BE97-4229, BRPR-CT97-587 Page 4 of 47

    report is assessing the pragmatic value of the project results. This is carried out by arepresentative of a classification society and a national maritime institute. The initial promiseof the project was: improved safety, improved safety standards, and cost reduction.

    Safety is a highly sensitive issue for the

Recommended

View more >