A MARINE DESIGN APPROACH TO WFSV BRIDGE LAYOUT DEVELOPMENT AND CREW TRANSFER

Design & Operation of Wind Farm Support Vessels, 28-29 January 2015, London, UK

© 2015: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects

A MARINE DESIGN APPROACH TO WFSV BRIDGE LAYOUT DEVELOPMENT AND

CREW TRANSFER

S McCartan and T Thompson, EBDIG-IRC, Coventry University, UK

C Anderberg, H Pahlm and F Forsman, Department of Shipping and Marine Technology, Chalmers University Of

Technology, SE

T Dobbins, ST-Research Ltd, UK

H Bernauer and H-J Wirsching, Human Solutions GmbH, DE

SUMMARY

The aim of Marine Design is to improve the human factors, functionality and aesthetics of a vessel or system, and its'

marketability. The role of a Marine Designer is to create and execute design solutions for problems of form, usability,

ergonomics, marketing, brand development, and sales. Based on the principles of Industrial Design, the objective of

which is to study both function and form, and the connection between product (vessel or system), the user and the

environment. User Centred Design (UCD) is a process in which the needs, requirements, and capabilities of crew

members as end users of a vessel or system, are given extensive consideration at each phase of the design process. UCD

is a sequenced problem solving process that requires marine designers to analyse and anticipate end user behaviour in

working on a vessel or system, and to test the validity of these assumptions through ethnographic analysis of real users.

Ethnographic analysis is necessary due to the challenge for marine designers to intuitively understand the experiences of

a first-time user (crew member) of their vessel or system design. UCD answers questions about users, their tasks and

goals, then uses the findings to inform the design process with specific user scenarios. This paper reports on an

ethnographic analysis carried out onboard a WFSV to evaluate current navigational practices and other command and

control activities specific to WFSV, including technician transfer to the turbine. The ethnographic analysis informed an

ergonomic analysis carried out using the Digital Human Modelling (DHM) software RAMSIS, which allowed the bridge

displays to be evaluated in the virtual design space.

1. INTRODUCTION

Marine Design is an holistic design process with a strong

focus on the end users as well as stakeholders in the

design process, based on the principles of Industrial

Design. In contrast to Industrial Design, Naval

Architecture is about addressing a design specification.

The most important part of the Marine Design (Industrial

Design) process is reaching a well informed design

specification. Effective Marine Design requires a

multidisciplinary design team of Naval Architects,

Industrial Designers, Human Factors specialists,

environmental psychologists and interior designers. The

start of the marine Design process is understanding the

personas and needs of the end user. The aim of Marine

Design is to improve the aesthetics, human factors and

functionality of a vessel or system, and its' marketability.

The role of a Marine Designer is to create and execute

design solutions for problems of form, usability,

ergonomics, marketing, brand development, and sales.

Based on the principles of Industrial Design, the

objective of which is to study both function and form,

and the connection between product (vessel or system),

the user and the environment.[1]

1.1 USER CENTRED DESIGN

User Centred Design (UCD) is a process in which the

needs, requirements, and capabilities of crew members as

end users of a vessel or system, are given extensive

consideration at each phase of the design process. UCD

is a sequenced problem solving process that requires

marine designers to analyse and anticipate end user

behaviour in working on a vessel or system, and to test

the validity of these assumptions through ethnographic

analysis of real users. Ethnographic analysis is necessary

due to the challenge for marine designers to intuitively

understand the experiences of a first-time user (crew

member) of their vessel or system design. UCD answers

questions about users, their tasks and goals, then uses the

findings to inform the design process with specific user

scenarios. [2]

UCD tools and methods characterised by two aspects, the

design activities they support, and the role of end-users

in these activities. The diagram in Figure 1, uses these

properties to illustrate the position of active user

involvement and participatory design within the field of

UCD methods. The horizontal axis outlines the project

phases in which the methods can be used. The vertical

axis outlines the intended level of user involvement

achieved with each method. The two bottom rows of the

diagram represent 'traditional' UCD methods in which

the roles of designers and users are quite distinct;

designers generate solutions for users based on explicit

knowledge. This knowledge can be gathered through

ethnographic research such as interviews or surveys with

the user, or by observing users during product use. Users

are the objects of study and, during usability testing, the

testers of solutions. These techniques are currently in

common use in the product design industry. Analysis,

design and evaluation activities as part of these methods

are mostly conducted by professionals for or together

with users. [3]



Figure 1: relation between user centred design,

participatory design [3]

There are however several challenges in product

development that cannot be addressed by these

traditional UCD methods:

Gathering rich user insights - Traditional

marketing tools do not always result in the

desired level of user insights as, for

instance, they focus on quantitative data

rather than in-depth qualitative data.

Acquiring experts knowledge - When

designing for professional use situations

with which designers are not familiar the

designer’s lack of practical experience

needs to be compensated.

Early validation of user requirements -

needs to validate concept directions with

users, traditional usability testing takes

place too late in the development process.

Obtaining a multi-perspective review - If

users with a variety of roles are involved in

the use of the same product, use situations

can become complex.

The top segment in Figure 1, represents active user

involvement and participatory design methods that have

been developed to address the aforementioned

challenges. Active user involvement methods have

become more broadly applied in practice over the last ten

years. Pioneers in this field, include design consultancy

IDEO, who are well known for their design approach of

user involvement in the analysis phase, and Philips, who

employ the LivingLabs approach. [3]

Participatory design had initially been used for the design

of software and organisational structures with the goal of

representing the interests of workers in the design

process. Recently it has been applied to civic

participation, healthcare design and architecture.

Compared to UCD and active user involvement

techniques, the broad adoption of participatory design in

industry has been moderate. As there is no homogenous

community that can be represented, nor is there a clearly

definable group of users to attend to.[3]

The field of active user involvement has a number of

methods addressing different parts of the spectrum, each

with its own interpretation of active user involvement.

The following characteristics can be used to differentiate

between the various methods: type of stakeholders

involved; number of stakeholders involved; type of

relation between the stakeholder and the product; project

activity in which stakeholders are involved. Involvement

can be limited to a specific activity phase (analysis,

design or testing), or applied throughout the project.

Despite the variety of methods and their implementation

in relation to the above characteristics, most of the

methods and techniques share one common goal, which

is to gain access to the user's tacit and practical

knowledge. [3]

Active user involvement methods help end users express

and analyse their current user interaction behaviour with

products and the context, allowing them to conceptualise

and reflect on future use scenarios. Effective

communication is required in order for end users to share

their tacit and practical knowledge with a design team

effectively and efficiently. However, communication

between users and a multidisciplinary design team is

challenging for both sides. As designers and engineers

are trained to communicate in a multidisciplinary

environment, but users are not. Therefore, it is difficult

for members of the design team to identify appropriate

questions for prospective users and construct them so

that the answers reveal useful design insights, as end

users are generally not able to translate their current

habits and routines into user requirements. It is therefore

necessary to employ a range of tools and techniques to

facilitate communication between end users and the

design team. They are often practical and action oriented,

encouraging participants to describe and explain their

actions. Designers can subsequently use this information

to improve the product. Physical mockups or virtual

prototypes are often used to reduce the threshold for

users to engage with the tools. Generic groups of

techniques include: task analysis; scenarios; virtual

reality. [3]

1.2 DIGITAL HUMAN MODELLING

There is a need to support the Wind Farm Support Vessel

sector to facilitate anthropometric and biomechanical

aspects of Human Factors Integration in the design

process. Traditionally, this has been supported through

the use of mock-ups, with their effective use for

anthropometric assessment often not being fully realised



due to time constraints or uninformed practices. Physical

mock-ups are typically constructed to assess the

interaction between the user and their working

environment, but this is still the exception rather than the

norm. There are three recognised classes of mock-up

fidelity, which designers/manufacturers may use:

Class 1 - Low fidelity: used to evaluate

approximate work/accommodation shape, space,

external vision and new ideas.

Class 2 - Good fidelity: produced to be close to

the craft drawing dimensions, used for the

assessment of detail design, crew stations

configuration, passenger space, maintenance

access, ability to undertake emergency

procedures, etc.

Class 3 - High fidelity: constructed with

production materials and to production

tolerances, used to interrogate Man-Machine

Interface details, task lighting, layouts of wiring,

plumbing, etc.

An issue with the production of Class 2 and Class 3

mock-ups is the resource required, both in terms of cost

and development time, however 3D Computer Aided

Design (CAD) has become the norm throughout the

marine design industry. The ability of CAD to optimise

human factor design considerations as an integral part of

the design process is an effective solution both in terms

of cost and development time (Dobbins, Hill, McCartan

and Thompson, [4]).

In the early 90s the German car industry developed a

CAD tool for early integration of ergonomics in the

vehicle design process. This CAD tool for ergonomics

and occupant packaging, was called RAMSIS (Realistic

Anthropometric Mathematical Simulation in Situation).

Its goal was to overcome the limitations of conventional

automotive industry practices of using two-dimensional

human templates, as well as to provide methods for

predicting driver postures and comfort. RAMSIS is based

on a highly accurate DHM (Digital Human Model) that

can simulate occupants with a large variety of body

dimensions from global anthropometry databases. A

probability-based posture prediction model was

developed through research on driver postures and

comfort. The assessment of comfort allows designers to

optimize packages with respect to driver comfort early in

the design process. Analysis tools include: reach and

vision; force-based posture and comfort prediction

model; simulation of ingress and egress. This DHM has

resulted in a reduction in development costs of more than

50% for the automotive industry through a reduction in

vehicle development timeframes by a factor of 3 to 5

(van der Meulen and Seidl, [5]). RAMSIS is now used in

the aerospace sector by companies such as Airbus,

EADS, Embraer and Eurocopter to address customer

specifications regarding the comfort, safety and

operability of aircraft.

Commercial vessels are similar to aircraft in that they are

very often sold at the digital model stage. As with the

automotive industry, using DHM, the development

timeframe can be reduced and optimized at the same time

because different design options can be easily compared

with one another. Posture in the cockpit, comfort and

ease of operation in the passenger cabins and the

feasibility of maintenance tasks can all be simulated. It

also facilitates the testing and optimization of the

feasibility of performing assembly, maintenance and

repair work. van der Meulen and DiClemente [6]

describe the use of the DHM in a proposed flight deck

design for the Eclipse 500 jet. The results were used to

detect accommodation problems, as well as to establish

further guidelines and requirements for design of the

cockpit and interior components.

RAMSIS Cognitive is a module for analyzing and

optimizing the perception and management of

information in the vehicle. As the number of instruments

in drivers’ cockpits increases it is vital to know how well

they can be perceived, and to ensure all the displays fall

well within the field of vision. This concerns all technical

information of a vehicle such as instruments, control

displays, and optical indicators. The additional

functionality allows simulation of viewing conditions in

the car, including methods for the analysis of sight

shadows, limits of visibility of liquid crystal displays,

estimating the time of focus shifts of the driver and the

modelling of the optical parameters of head-up displays.

This offers optimized instrument visibility resulting in

greater operational safety and increased comfort. It also

results in lower costs for modifications during the

development phase (Remlinger, Bubb and Wirsching,

[7]). The work undertaken within the European Boat

Design Innovation Group found that tools such as

RAMSIS are effective human factor design tools in the

majority of marine applications, (Dobbins, Hill,

McCartan and Thompson, [4]).

2. WFSV OPERATION AND TASK

ANALYSIS

WFSVs are usually built with a capacity of 12 passengers

plus the crew. The passengers are technicians who are

transported out to the wind farm where they board the

turbine pylons and perform their duties. The number of

wind farm support vessels has grown and in this

emerging fleet the concept of a safe transfer of personnel

to the wind farm unit is the most important objective. It

must be done in a safe and efficient manner through

certain access points; the key in these operations is the

access system and the procedures around it. Competence

and experience is there for vital to secure these objectives

but it’s also important to apply user centred design

(UCD) principles to, given the opportunity for the crew

to handle the vessel correctly and in a safe manner.[8]

Within this lies a technical challenge and adjust these to

user needs that support safe and efficient operations.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=Peter+van+der+Meulen

http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=Andreas+Seidl



General practise within the industry has been to “butt”

the CTV tightly against the friction bars on the wind

turbine and hold it there with forward propulsion [9].

This “bump to bump” solution works with smaller

vessels with wave heights up to 1.5m significant wave

height (Hs).

However, as the operations intend to move further out at

sea with larger vessels, other solutions, principles and

procedures are required in higher significant wave

heights. [9] Gangway or access systems are used but they

are not common among these vessels, however as the

vessels motions involves six degree of freedom (Pitch,

roll, heave, surge, sway and yaw) it’s difficult to

compensate for all motions at the same time which

makes these technical applications difficult to apply on

these small vessels. In the analysis of offshore wind

turbine O&M using a novel time domain meteo-ocean

modeling approach Dinwoodie, Quail and McMillan [10]

identified the benefit and limitation in influencing

availability by increased access vessel thresholds. The

most significant gains at all sites are obtained by

increasing vehicle operability from 1.5 m to 2.5m

significant wave height (Hs), after which gains diminish

and a limit is reached that is dependent on failure

characteristic of the turbine. For reported failure rates,

the limit is approximately 92% significantly below the

97% availability achieved onshore.

The need for 2.5m Hs to increase the operability of the

vessel, is a key driver for both vessel platform

technology and crew transfer technology. BMT have

developed the extreme semi- SWATH (XSS) concept

[11] which aims to offer an improved level of seakeeping

over existing designs without the performance and cost

penalty exhibited by a full SWATH vessel. Where a

higher powering requirement is considered acceptable in

return for significant improvement in seakeeping

capability and operability. A key aspect of technical

developments is how users can interact with this

equipment and design, if this interactivity is optmised the

operational capability will increase and safety risk levels

decrease. This can be done by applying User Centred

Design (UCD) principles in order to get an optimal

Human Machine Interface (HMI). The bridge of the

WFSV evaluated is shown in Figures 2-4. The crew have

2 seats there is a chart table and a computer area for

technicians and crew.

Figure 2: Plan view of bridge.

iew of bridge

Figure 3: Rear 3/4 starboard view of bridge

Figure 4: Rear 3/4 starboard view of bridge



2.1 Task Analysis

In order to obtain a better understanding of what offshore

operations consist of, and in particular wind farm service

operations, a hierarchical task analysis was conducted on

a vessel crew, participating in this type of operation,

primarily transporting technicians and cargo to and from

the wind farm . A hierarchical task analysis was chosen

since it was expected to give timely results, and would

not interfere with the operation. There is an intrinsic

limitation with this method: cognitive processes and the

level of mental workload needed in each step of the

process are not directly part of the analysis. Thus effort

was put to record these in a different manner, but linked

to the hierarchical task analysis.

A HTA method was chosen (Stanton, et al.,[12]) and

performed as follows:

1. Define the purpose of the analyse

2. Collect data by interviews and observation

3. Determine top level goals

4. Divide top level goals in sub goals

5. Divide sub goals

6. Outline the how the goals are achieved in

relation to each other.

The on-board visit/observations took place on a CTV

which was chartered for the wind farm operator

Vattenfall; performing its duties on the DanTysk offshore

wind farm west of Esbjerg (DK). There were three crew

members who belonged to the vessel. On that day for the

observation there were eleven technicians coming out for

conducting work in the wind farm, which were fifty

nautical miles off the coast.

The Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA) is a result of the

observations, recordings and interviews during its

operations in the Wind farm that day. Mainly the

observation took place from the bridge of the concerned

vessel, covering navigation to field, different approached

to different turbines/floatels and substation, a cargo

operation at a sub stations was also observed. The

approach to wind turbine is shown in Figure 5, the

position of the camera illustrates more or less the visual

view of the master. Visual confirmation is leading for

action and control of the vessels position in relation the

boat landing. Important aspects here are wave heights

and direction also strength and direction of the current is

important when evaluating approach direction.

Preparation for technician transfer is shown in Figure 6,

where a crew member is assisting with the safety line,

with the technician transfer shown in Figure 7. The

layout of bridge forward console (Figure 8) is always the

in the line of sight of the captain when navigating

between turbines. Figure 9 shows the captain

manoeuvring the vessel against the turbine, his left hand

operates the main propulsion and his right the rudder, the

bow thrusters are seldom used.

The top level task of the HTA (which is simplified in this

paper) is shown in figure 10. The take away message on

this level to be used in the UCD process is the four main

tasks the crew is engaged in at the bridge which are:

1. Navigation in restricted water inshore

2. Navigation in open water

3. Navigation the approach to installations

4. Manoeuvring close to physical objects.

The requirement for all those four tasks must be met

without compromising the ability to perform another.

Without a structured methodology like UCD this might

not be considered and thus the system as a whole sub

optimized with increased risks of accidents as a natural

consequence.

Figure 5: Approach to wind turbine

Figure 6: Preparation for technician transfer

Figure 7: Technician transfer



Figure 8: Layout of bridge forward console

Figure 9: Captain manoeuvres vessel

To be able to operate the vessel in a safe and efficient

manner, the vessel and its support systems should be

designed according to a user centered design approach.

To be able to operate the vessel in marginal conditions,

this design approach has a very important role to play.

Limitations in design might limit the vessel crew in

interacting with systems and controls, which affects

decision making. The system should provide good

overview, both to an individual and a group of operators,

as dictated by the task/s being performed. There should

be support for team work, information sharing and

communication. This approach does not only affect the

vessel but also the turbine itself. Therefore, to design a

system that supports the user and the different tasks in an

offshore environment is a very complex task. For

example, the majority of the boat-landing points on the

turbine pylons are designed to meet the highest wave

heights, but the main factor that affects the vessels

approach is actually the ocean current. Stated in the

interview by the captain, the bridge design on this vessel

is supportive in the task he is undertaken in these types of

operations.

2.2 HSC NAVIGATION BEST PRACTICE

Overall it is essential that Human Systems Integration

(HSI) is embedded within the WFSV design process.

Examples of this HSI process for HSC have been

described by Dobbins et al. [13] and where appropriate

have been incorporated within the design described

within this paper. Within the HTA (Section 2.1)

navigation is highlighted as essential for mission success.

Previously navigation errors during wind farm support

vessel operations have been highlighted within incident

reports by the UK Maritime Accident Investigation

Branch (MAIB) [14]. Navigation best practice, known as

Dynamic NAVigation (DYNAV) for HSC operations

[15] has been adopted by numerous organisations

worldwide. Being a simple methodology it provides the

crew with a resilient system for delivering both

performance and safety. The four phases of

methodology; Plan, Communicate, Execute and Control

provide a shared mental model for the crew, and provides

the interoperability capability for organisations tasked

with crewing WFSVs. The phases are graphically

illustrated in Figures 11 and 12 below.

Figure 11: The four phases of the DYnamic NAVigation

(DYNAV) methodlogy International best practice.

Figure 12: The DYNAV phases viewed from the WFSV

making a turn in restricted waters towards the windfarm.

It is important that the WFSV crew have the required

information to support SA and decision making during

the ‘PLAN’ phase of the DYNAV methodology. Because

of the high tempo and short durations available for

decision making the navigation information must be

displayed in an intuitive format to support rapid

assimilation by the crew members. This issue has

previously been delineated in the work of Dobbins et al.

[16] and will be evaluated within the project by using the

RAMSIS Cognitive program.



3. DHM ANALYSIS

RAMSIS is based on a highly accurate DHM (Digital

Human Model) that can simulate occupants with a large

variety of body dimensions from global anthropometry

databases. A probability-based posture prediction model

was developed through research on driver postures and

comfort. The assessment of comfort allows designers to

optimize packages with respect to driver comfort early in

the design process. Analysis tools include: reach and

vision; force-based posture and comfort prediction

model.

3.1 General DHM procedure

Applying a DHM to assess a design with respect to

ergonomic criteria consists of three steps in general. First

a test sample is defined and second task specific postures

of this test sample are predicted within the design.

Finally these postures are analysed taking several

ergonomic criteria into account.

In order to address a wide range of operators, a

corresponding test sample is specified. In general

medium and boundary manikins are created from

anthropometric databases with focus on specific body

dimensions. In many applications the stature is of major

interest and hence a female manikin of the 5th percentile

stature as well a male manikins of 50th and 95th

percentile stature are generated (Figure 13)

Figure 13: Definition of test samples

In the next step these manikins are automatically

positioned into the design. The posture prediction

method is based on experimental posture knowledge and

a user defined task description. This task defines the

interaction of the manikin with the design and consists of

high level instructions like “foot to the floor” and “hands

on joy stick”. These instructions are displayed as target

lines between the manikin and the environment objects

(see Figure 14).

Figure 14: High level task definition and visualized

target lines

Based on the manikin anthropometrics and the design

dimensions a corresponding task specific postures are

automatically calculated (see Figure 15).

Figure 15: Task specific postures (e.g. operating with

control balls and crew positions)

In a final step these postures are analyzed with respect to

different ergonomic criteria like view, operating forces,

comfort, reachability, perceptibility (see Figure 16).

Figure 16: Ergonomic analysis on task specific postures

(e.g. view, operating force)



The ergonomic analysis on the manikins gives feedback

on the ergonomics of the design and helps the engineer to

modify the design in order to get better ergonomic

ratings. In the following subsections the ergonomic

analysis are given in more detail.

3.2 Posture and Reach Analysis

In a first step, the predicted task specific postures are

evaluated with respect to accessibility of the design, i.e.

check of task fulfilment, and with respect to joint angles

in extreme positions close to anatomical joint angle

limits (see Figure 17).

Figure 17: Evaluation of task specific postures

In addition the reach envelopes for different body parts

are displayed and checked against the position of panel

surfaces. The reach envelopes can be subjected to full

body motions (torso plus arms) or to restricted motions

(just arms, see Figure 18).

Figure 18: Reach envelope (e.g. left arm in operating

posture)

3.3 Analysis of operating forces

In some applications the question of operability is of

more interest than just reachability. In these cases the

operating postures can be evaluated with respect to

human forces, which can be applied by the operator to

devices. These human forces have to be in line with the

necessary forces to operate the device (see Figure 19)

Figure 19: Human force calculation for operational task

3.4 Vision Analysis

Figure 20: Vision through eyes of the manikin in

operation posture (left, middle, right display)



A first decent impression of the vision conditions for the

operator is achieved through the manikin vision (see

Figure 20). The designer looks at the environment

through the eyes of the simulated operator and can easily

check view obstructions for different sizes of the

operator (small female, tall male). Beside this qualitative

analysis RAMSIS can predict different view areas like

perception and gaze fields. They can be used to cluster

the display areas for important and less important

information devices (see Figure 21)

Figure 21: Analysis of display information placement

with respect to the gaze field of the operator

Figure 22:Vision shift time isochrones to cluster time

critical display positions (Observer view upper, operator

vision lower)

Another cluster method for display areas is to use vision

shift time isochrones. Starting from the current operator’s

point of fixation the isochrones provides regions for

vision shifts within the same required time (see Figure

21). Time critical displays should be placed within

smaller isochrones. In designing and positioning optical

displays in bridge configurations the optical display

properties should be taken into account to ensure a

decent perception from the operator’s position. A basic

ergonomic condition is that the operator’s eyes should be

within the display opening pyramid, i.e. within the area,

from which the display information can be recognized.

This situation can be analysed with RAMSIS in order to

check the perceptibility of display information (see

Figure 23).

Figure 23: Analysis of display opening pyramids with

respect to operator’s position

The ergonomics of displays are affected by the acuity of

the display characters and symbols. This is depending on

the visual capabilities of the operator, the size of the

characters and symbols and on the distance between

operator and display. The complete situation can be

analyzed by RAMSIS through simulating the look on a

specific character position of the display and generating

corresponding test characters for different levels of

recognition (minimum, optimal, recommended). These

test sizes can be checked against the current display

character sizes (Figure 24).

4. DISCUSSION

The Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA) of the navigation

of the WFSV was carried out by marine Human Factor

researchers with qualified crew background. This offered

unique user insights and has informed the objectives of

the bridge layout anthropometric analysis using DHMs in

RAMSIS, and the analysis of the readability of the

display screens using RAMSIS Cognitive Toolbox. The

aim of this ongoing project is to engage in the

multidisciplinary approach of Marine Design in order to

optimise the bridge layout and information displays of a

WFSV, while minimising the design development costs.

Achieved through the integration of Dynamic



NAVigation (DYNAV) practices, to inform an optimised

information architecture and decision system, and the

implementation of DHM analysis using RAMSIS. DHM

is a Transfer of Innovation from the automotive industry,

where it has demonstrated a reduction in development

costs of more than 50%, through a reduction in vehicle

development timeframes by a factor of 3 to 5.

Figure 24: Simulation of look at display characters

(upper) and comparison of recommended and current

character and symbol sizes (lower)

Luras and Nordby [17] investigated the use of field

research in multidisciplinary design process of a bridge

for an offshore service vessel. The UBC (Ulstein Bridge

Concept) was a design research project seeking to

redefine current ship bridges on offshore service vessels

including deck layout, workplace design and user

interfaces. The project was carried out by a

multidisciplinary team of researchers and designers from

the fields of interaction, industrial, sound and graphic

design, as well as experts in human factors and

engineering. Informed by their experiences of these field

studies for design processes they introduce the model of

design-driven field research. The model has three pillars

of field studies in design: data mapping; experiencing life

at sea; on-site design reflection. Design-driven field

research emphasises the need for designers to experience

the on-board environment for themselves when designing

for complex marine domains such as ships bridges. It

also encourages the designer to engage in design

reflection in the field, in order to accelerate the process

of interpreting use situations, thus expediting the creation

of appropriate designs.

Building upon the design-driven field research model the

Marine Design approach utilises the Virtual Design

Studio (VDS), a web based platform for file sharing and

VOIP to minimise the cost of collaboration. Here the

approach is to develop an optimised information

architecture and decision system, through the use of 3D

CAD systems and RAMSIS, informed by a dialogue

between researchers and key stakeholders, based on the

integration of Dynamic NAVigation (DYNAV)

practices. The resulting design proposals are then

evaluated in a bridge simulator, with the best performing

design uploaded to a WFSV bridge for field trails. The

multidisciplinary team of researchers and stakeholders

includes: marine HF and HSC navigation consultancy

(ST-Research); marine HF and HSC navigation

researcher experts (Chalmers University); vessel operator

(Mainprize Offshore); vessel interior and motion seat

design and manufacture (KPM-Marine); vessel display

system developer (Marine Automation Propulsion).

The reach and vision analysis of the pilot seat have

shown it to be appropriate for the following range of

manikins: 5th percentile female; 50th percentile male;

95th percentile male. The force-based posture and

comfort prediction model analysis has shown the control

layout and type to be suitable for the percentiles

examined. Several display screen layouts were analysed

using the RAMSIS cognitive toolbox, which facilitated a

comparison of recommended and current character and

symbol sizes, this is ongoing work. Initial results have

shown the displays to be effective. However, the current

navigational procedures are suboptimal in terms of HSC

navigational best practice. This will be examined by the

authors in further work through the use of RAMSIS to

develop and evaluate several display configurations. The

use of vision shift time isochrones within RAMSIS

Cognitive will enable time critical display positions to be



clustered. These display configurations will be validated

using a bridge simulator with both current WFSV crew

and Dynamic NAVigation (DYNAV) HSC experts. The

limitation of the RAMSIS analysis is that it does not

consider the high level of vibration and motion of the

vessel, which impedes the operators ability to read

information from the display system. This could be an

opportunity for a transfer of innovation such as the use of

HUD and eye tracking to provide motion compensated

displays.

There are procedures in place for crew transfer up to

1,5m significant wave height (Hs) which seems to be an

industry standard. However, as operations do occur in

wave heights above this value, which have no clear

stated procedures, “Then you are on your own” stated

one captain. The industry needs higher accessibility but

there are limited procedures to support this. Developed

by BMT and Houlder, the Turbine Access System

(TAS) [11] is a lightweight, heave compensated gangway

system which has the potential to significantly improve

the safety of personnel transfer and will also allow

transfer in higher wave conditions. There is no

requirement for a dynamic positioning system, which

enables the system to be installed on standard windfarm

support vessels. A further major advantage of TAS is that

at no point does the system attach to the turbine. Comprehensive HAZID and HAZOP assessments of

TAS have been undertaken with vessel operators,

windfarm developers and turbine suppliers. Fitted to a

24m windfarm support vessel the TAS has undergone

extensive sea trials and successfully demonstrated

increased operability up to 2.5m Hs seas. Operational

performance of TAS has been proven at Rhyl Flats

offshore windfarm. Further assessments are ongoing with

a variety of operators and developers to demonstrate its

flexibility and safety The system also comprises bow

rollers that replace traditional fendering to dampen the

motion of the host vessel. This eliminates the “stick &

slip” behaviour of existing fender arrangements.

Improves safety, minimises risk and reduces costs by

supporting offshore personnel transfer in 2.5m Hs seas

TAS provides a cost effective way of increasing the

operational window for O&M technicians, thereby

reducing the number of days lost to weather. [18]

The operation of a Wind Farm Support Vessel is a socio-

technical system composed of people, equipment and

organisational structures. Socio-technical systems regard

organisations (in this case a vessel) as consisting of

complex interactions between personnel and technology.

This approach can also encompass the wider context to

include the societal infrastructures and behaviours in the

wider, shore-based management aspects of the

organisation. These aspects are linked by functional

processes (which are essential for transforming inputs

into outputs) and social processes which are informal but

which may serve to either facilitate or hinder the

functional processes (McDonald, [19]). In the Five ‘M’s

system approach (Harris and Harris, [20]) WFSV

navigation and crew transfer is not just about the

integration of the crew (huMans) and ship (Machine) to

undertake a particular voyage (or Mission) within the

constraints imposed by the physical environment

(Medium). It is also about the societal/cultural

environment (a further aspect of the Medium). In

shipping, the role of Management is crucial.

Figure 25: The Five ‘M’s Model [20]

The (hu)Man aspect of the five ‘M’s approach

encompasses such issues as the size, personality,

capabilities and training of the user, in this case the

vessel’s crewmembers. Taking a user-centred design

approach, the crew are the ultimate design forcing

function, as the design of the equipment and procedures

on the vessel have to lie within the core abilities of the

people involved. The (hu)Man and the Machine (ship)

components come together to perform a Mission tasked

by the Management. However, design solutions must not

only work within the parameters (Human Factors)

imposed by the crew, the ship’s technology and the

environment, and regulations governing the design,

construction and operation of the ship and the wider

norms of society. The owner’s Management must also

work within these rules. This prescribes performance

standards through the selection and training of crew or

the required technical performance of the ship.

The Management is the key link between the (hu)Man,

Machine, Mission and Medium. It plays the integrating

role that ensures compliance with the regulations and

promotes safe and efficient operations. The inter-

relationships between the five ‘M’s are illustrated in

Figure 25.

During the late 1990s the discipline of Human Systems

Integration (HSI) began to appear, initially in military

procurement programmes but subsequently in the oil and

gas industries. HSI provides a through-life, integrative

framework with the potential both to enhance safety and

increase performance while reducing through life costs.

HSI originally encompassed six domains [21]. These

were Staffing (how many people are required to operate

and maintain the system); Personnel (what are the



aptitudes, experience and other human characteristics

required to operate the system); Training (how can the

requisite knowledge, skills and abilities to operate and

maintain the system be developed and maintained);

Human Factors Engineering (how can human

characteristics be integrated into system design to

optimise performance within the human/machine

system); Health Hazards (what are the short or long term

hazards to health resulting from normal operation of the

system) and System Safety (how can the safety risks

which humans might cause when operating or

maintaining the system be identified and eliminated,

trapped or managed). Subsequently a seventh domain

was added, the Organisational and Social domain, which

encompasses issues such as culture, safety management,

information sharing and interoperability. Taking a

system-wide approach means that Human Factors can

now ‘add value’. Examples of this are already appearing

in the military domain (Human Factors Integration

Defence Technology Centre, [22]). For example, taking

an end-to-end system perspective, good equipment

design simplifies operating (and hence training)

requirements, making training faster and cheaper (less

time is spent in unproductive – not revenue producing –

work). Training is better targeted to the operator’s

requirements and is more efficient. Simultaneously,

better equipment design (e.g. interface design or design

for maintainability) and better specified training

produces superior, more error-free (safer) performance.

Careful crew selection processes may be more expensive

initially but they subsequently reduce the drop out and

failure rate in training (also expensive). Analysis and

modification of crew rostering practices can produce

rotas which produce more efficient utilisation of crew,

reduce fatigue, increase well-being and simultaneously

enhance safety. Such efforts can also reduce stress and

decrease employee turnover. At the same time a well-

considered Human Factors aspect in a company’s safety

management system makes it cheaper to run and

produces the information required to promote safer

operations.

Implementing good Human Factors practices into the

design can make considerable through life savings. It

can also avoid costly re-works as a result of design mis-

specifications. For example, for the UK Royal Navy’s

Single Role Minehunters, it was discovered, after having

accepted the first of five ships into service, that it was

difficult to recover the Remote Control Mine Disposal

System back on board the ship in high seas. To address

the problem, a better crane with a remote control facility

was installed; a platform for the operator was made and

an additional recovery hook and pole was provided. This

was a simple manual handling problem which was

overlooked during development which eventually cost

£1.9 million to make the design changes to overcome

these difficulties. The Human Factors National Advisory

Committee for Defence and Aerospace [23] describes

examples of the benefits of taking a wider socio-

technical/HSI approach to equipment design. The

developer of an aircraft engine who adopted such an

approach reduced the number of tools required for the

line maintenance of a new turbine from over 100 to just

10; fewer specialist skills were needed further allowing a

consolidation in the number of maintenance trades

required which also resulted in an overall reduction in

training time.

The Human Factors Engineering (HFE) component of

HFI is usually the starting point for the HSI process.

One of the objectives of HFE is to minimize the potential

for error and promote the performance of assigned

activities as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Human error can be a direct cause or a significant

contributing factor for accidents onboard vessels and

offshore facilities. However, ‘Human Error’ in itself is

not an explanation to the cause of accidents and

incidents. It is merely the very beginning of an

explanation. Human errors are systematically connected

to features of an operator’s training, their tools and tasks

as it has its roots in the wider socio-technical system.

The question of ‘Human Error’ alone is an

oversimplified belief in the roots of failure (Dekker,

[24]).

From a Human Factors perspective, safety is all about the

error ‘troika’: prevent error; trap error, or mitigate its

consequences (Helmreich, Merritt and Wilhelm, [25]).

Prevention of error may be achieved by equipment

design (as seen in many computer interfaces which will

not accept an invalid input) or through procedural

countermeasures in ship operations. However, even

when an error has been committed, there should be

procedures which trap the error in a timely manner.

Continual crew monitoring of position should ensure that

even if an error has not been prevented or trapped, the

ship should not enter an unsafe condition (i.e. the error

should be mitigated). Other approaches take an

integrated human/system approach to error prevention,

such as formal error identification methods. These deal

specifically with hardware and procedures rather than

looking more widely across the organisation (e.g.

examining its practices and culture) – a more systemic

approach. Reason [26] advocates this latter approach for

removing the underlying factors promoting error,

suggesting that addressing the ‘general failure types’

(such as poor tasking; poor scheduling; poor design; poor

procedures; poor training; poor planning and bad

communication) is the most cost effective approach.

Such Performance Shaping Factors (PSFs) are conditions

which substantially increase the likelihood of human

error in a given situation. O’Hare [27] divided PSFs into

those external to the person (for example, environmental

conditions; equipment design; operating manuals and

procedures; training provided and poor supervision) and

those internal to the person (including their emotional

state; physical condition; stress and fatigue; and

experience; and task knowledge).



The US Department of Defense specifies four generic

categories of barrier to poor human performance that

may be applied in any system. Ideally, safety critical

systems should be defended at the highest level possible

(and at multiple levels). The hierarchy of barriers from

MIL-STD-882C [28] is:

Design for minimum risk – Eliminate the

hazard from the system if possible. Design the

system so the accident cannot happen.

Incorporate safety devices – Design into the

system automatic devices which, when a

specified hazard occurs, prevent the system from

entering a dangerous state.

Provide warning devices – These should

activate early, leaving the operator time to stop a

critical system state developing.

Develop procedures and training – Provide

adequate training in procedures to operate

equipment in a safe manner.

System-induced errors reflect deficiencies in the

implementation of the HFI processes. They include

mistakes in designating the number and type of

personnel, system operating policies, training

(competency assurance), data resources, logistics,

organizational responsibilities, and maintenance

requirements, and support. Design factors are related to

these errors and include aspects of the system hardware,

software, procedures, environment and training which

affect the likelihood of human error. They result from

human incompatibilities with the design of equipment.

Taking an integrated Human Factors approach in the

design process avoids mis-matches between system

design and human capabilities. The objectives of HFI and

HFE are to provide systems and equipment that reduce

the potential for human error, increase system

availability, lower lifecycle costs, improve safety, and

enhance overall performance (McSweeney, Pray, and

Craig, [29]). The key to demonstrating the utility of

Human Factors is not to count the cost of investing in it,

but to calculate the savings that it makes on a through-

life basis.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Overall it is essential that Human Systems Integration

(HSI) is embedded within the WFSV design process. As

the implementation of good Human Factors practices into

the design can make considerable through life savings. A

critical part of HSI is the implementation of navigation

best practice, known as Dynamic NAVigation (DYNAV)

for HSC operations. It provides the interoperability

capability for organisations tasked with crewing WFSVs.

The Marine Design approach to WFSV bridge layout

development incorporates HSI and has shown the

significant benefits of the multidisciplinary approach.

The Transfer of Innovation of DHM from the automotive

sector through the use of RAMSIS and RAMSIS

cognitive shows the potential to reduce development

costs in the design of current programmable display

screen technology.

The issues of high levels of vibration and motion of a

vessel at speed, which can impede the operators ability to

read information from the display system, this could be

an opportunity for technology transfer. Where, the use of

HUD and eye tracking could be used to provide motion

compensated displays. As identified in the 5M's model

[20] successful technology transfer requires a framework

for adaption and evaluation.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank Mainprize Offshore, KPM-

Marine and Marine Automation Propulsion for

supporting the ongoing Marine Design project presented

in this paper. The authors gratefully acknowledge the

grant support received to carry out the work presented in

this paper as an integral part of the Leonardo TOI funded

project EBDIG-WFSV, funded under the EU Lifelong

Learning Programme, grant number: UK/13/LLP-

LdV/TOI-621. The content of the publication is the sole

responsibility of the authors, the European Commission

is not liable for any use that may be made of the

information.

7. REFERENCES

1. DE NOBLET, J., 'Industrial design: reflection of

a century', Flammarion publishing, 1996, ISBN

978-2-0801-35391

2. BODKER,S., 'Scenarios in user-centred design-

setting the stage for reflection and action',

Journal of Interacting with Computers, issue 13,

p61-75, Elsevier Publishing, 2000.

3. THALEN, J., and GARDE, J. ‘Capturing use:

user involvement and participatory design’, in

de BONT,C., den OUDEN, E.,

SCHIFFERSTEIN, R., SMULDERS, F., and

van der VOORT, M.,(eds),'Advanced Design

Methods for Successful Innovation: Recent

methods from design research and design

consultancy in the Netherlands', Design United,

September 2013, pp 33-54. ISBN 978 94 6186

213 6.

4. Dobbins, T., Hill, J., McCartan, S., Thompson

T.(2011) Enhancing Marine Ergonomic Design

VIA Digital Human Modeling. RINA

conference on Human Factors in Ship Design,

16 - 17 November, RINA HQ, London, UK.



5. van der Meulen, P., and Seidl, A.( 2007) Digital

Human Modeling, Lecture Notes in Computer

Science, , Vol. 4561, 1008-1017

6. van der Meulen, P. and DiClemente, P.,(2001)

"Ergonomic Evaluation of an Aircraft Cockpit

with RAMSIS 3D Human Modeling Software,"

SAE Technical Paper 2001-01-2115.

7. Remlinger, W., Bubb, H., and Wirsching,

H.(2009),Sight Analysis with ‘RAMSIS

Cognitive’: Step II, SAE Technical Paper 2009-

01-2295, (van de Vrandea et al., 2009).

8. Offshore wind Journal, 2nd quarter, 2013,

http://www.rivieramm.com/publications/offshor

e-wind-journal-38/digital-edition-605, accessed

10/12/14

9. Marsh G (2013), Deep offshore O&M:

accessing all areas, January/February 2013,

Renewable Energy Focus, p 24-30

10. DINWOODLE, I., and MCMILLAN, D.,

'Sensitivity of offshore wind turbine operation

& maintenance costs to operational parameters',

42nd ESReDA Seminar, Risk and Reliability for

Wind Energy and other Renewable Sources, 15-

16 May 2012, Glasgow, UK

11. JUPP, M., SIME, R., and DUDSON, E., 'XSS-

A next generation windfarm support vessel',

RINA Conference: Design & Operation of Wind

Farm Support Vessels, 29-30 January 2014,

London, UK.

12. Stanton, N. A., Salmon, P. M., Walker, G. H.,

Baber, C., & Jenkins, D. P. (2006). Human

Factors Methods: A Practical Guide for

Engineering And Design: Ashgate Publishing

Company.

. 13. Dobbins, T., McKesson, C. and Stark, J. (2012)

Embedding Human Systems Integration within

Marine Systems Engineering. Conference

Proceedings; RINA Systems Engineering in

Ship & Offshore Design Conference, London.

March, 2012.

14. MAIB Accident Report, Combined report on the

investigation of the contact with a floating target

by the windfarm passenger transfer catamaran

Windcat 9 while transiting Donna Nook Air

Weapons Range and the investigation of the

contact of Island Panther with turbine I-6 in

Sheringham Shoal Winf Farm. Report No.

23/2013.

15. Forsman, F., Dahlman, J. and Dobbins, T.

(2011) Developing a Standard Methodology For

Dynamic Navigation in the Littoral

Environment. Conference Proceedings; RINA

Human Factors in Ship Design Conference,

London, November, 2011.

16. Dobbins, T., Forsman, F., Hill, J., Brand, T.,

Dahlman, J., Harris, D., Smoker, A., Stark J.

and MacKinnon, S. (2013) Information

Architecture for Fast Response Craft –

Command & Control & Human Systems

Integration. Conference Proceedings; RINA

SURV-8 conference, Poole, UK.

17. LURAS, S., and NORDBY, K.,' Field Studies

Informing Ship's Bridge Design at the Ocean

Industries Concept Lab', RINA Conference:

Human Factors in Ship Design & Operation,

RINA HQ London, 26-27 February, 2014.

18. http://houlderltd.com/articles/show/110

accessed 10/12/14

19. McDonald, N. 2008., Modelling the Human

Role in Operational Systems. In, S. Martorell,

C. Guedes Soares and J. Barnett Eds Safety,

Reliability and Risk Analysis: Theory, Methods

and Applications. London: CRC Press.

20. Harris, D. and Harris, F.J., 2004. Predicting the

successful transfer of technology between

application areas; a critical evaluation of the

human component in the system. Technology in

Society 26(4), pp. 551-565.

21. UK Ministry of Defence, (2001). Human

Factors Integration HFI: Practical Guidance

for IPTs. London: Author.

22. Human Factors Integration Defence Technology

Centre, 2006. Cost Arguments and Evidence for

Human Factors Integration. London: UK

Ministry of Defence.

23. The Human Factors National Advisory

Committee for Defence and Aerospace (2003)

24. Dekker, S.W.A., 2001. The Re-Invention of

Human Error. Human Factors and Aerospace

Safety, 1, pp. 247-266.

25. Helmreich, R.L., Merritt, A.C., and Wilhelm,

J.A., 1999. The Evolution of Crew Resource

Management Training in Commercial Aviation.

International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9,

pp. 19-32.

26. Reason, J.T., 1997. Managing the Risks of

Organizational Accidents. Aldershot: Ashgate.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/978-3-540-73318-8/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/978-3-540-73318-8/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/0302-9743/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/0302-9743/



27. O’Hare, D., 2006. Cognitive Functions and

Performance Shaping Factors in Aviation

Accidents and Incidents. International Journal

of Aviation Psychology, 16, pp. 145-156.

28. US Department of Defense, 1993. Military

Standard: System Safety Program Requirements

MIL-STD-882C. Washington, DC: US

Department of Defense.

29. McSweeney, K.P., Pray, J., and Craig,

B.N.(2009) Integration of human factors

engineering into design- an applied approach,

ABS Technical papers.

8. AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY

Dr Sean McCartan holds the current position of Course

Tutor, Boat Design at Coventry University, UK. His key

research area is TOI (Transfer of Innovation) from other

sectors to the marine industry, in the areas of Design-

Driven Innovation (DDI), advanced visualisation and

Human Systems Integration(HSI). He leads the EBDIG

(European Boat Design Innovation Group) network,

which includes Chalmers University; Genoa University;

TU-Delft; and a number of leading European marine

design consultancies. He is currently project co-ordinator

for the Leonardo TOI project EBDIG-WFSV (European

Boat Design Innovation Group - Wind Farm Support

Vessels), which aims to develop online training material

for Naval Architects in the subject areas of: Human

Factors; WFSV design (Industrial Design); WFSV

mothership design (Industrial Design).

Tim Thompson holds the current position of part-time

CAD lecturer in the Department of Industrial Design at

Coventry University, UK. He is currently project

Research Assistant for the Leonardo TOI project

EBDIG-WFSV (European Boat Design Innovation

Group - Wind Farm Support Vessels). His CAD teaching

is informed by his professional practice within his design

consultancy, which specialises in photorealistic

visualisation for the superyacht design and interior

design industry.

Christopher Anderberg is working with development

of Offshore and Dynamic Positioning Operations in the

division Maritime Human Factors and Navigation. After

completed master studies and BSc degree at Chalmers

University of Technology, he worked in

Walleniusrederierna as mate of ocean-going fleet.

Eventually he joined a "Bowloading Tanker" in the North

Sea. He has participated in several advanced operations

in Dynamic Positioning (DP), anchor handling, ice

management, offshore support, and more. Several of

these have been implemented in Arctic environments.

Currently Christopher is about to finish a master thesis

focusing on crew transfer in remote offshore wind farms

Henrik Pahlm currently holds the position of lecturer

and head of division of Maritime Environment and

Energy Systems at Chalmers University of Tecnology.

He has a background as Marine engineer mostly working

as Chief engineer and 1st engineer during the last

decades. Henrik also has a MSc in Shipping and Marine

Technology. He is teaching and supervising in different

subjects within the competence area.

Fredrik Forsman, Capt, holds the current position of

PhD Student within the Human Factors Group at

Chalmers University of Technology. His previous

experience includes the training of High Speed

Navigation Crews in the Swedish Amphibious Corp

where he developed the DYNAV methodology. He was

also the Director of Training Development for the

Swedish Sea Rescue Society (SSRS).

Trevor Dobbins holds the current position of Director at

STResearch Ltd. He has published widely on HSC

human factors and is the principal author of the High

Speed Craft Human Factors Engineering Design Guide.

His previous experiences include projects for the UK

MOD, RNLI, dstl, and the US Navy.

Dr. Hans-Joachim Wirsching holds the current position

of project manager. He studied mathematics and

computer science in Germany and Japan and received a

doctor degree in applied mathematics. He joined Human

Solutions in the R&D department in 1998 and was

responsible for conceptual work for the development of

new software solutions. Since 2003 he has been

responsible for industrial and public funded R&D

projects regarding the ergonomic tool RAMSIS. In this

context he managed the European research projects

REALMAN, DHErgo, VERITAS as work package

leader. In his research activities he has published papers

and delivered conference presentations on Digital Human

Modelling (DHM) techniques and applications. Heike Bernauer (MSc), holds the current position of

applications engineer. She joined Human Solutions as an

application engineer in the field of ergonomic simulation

in 2011. In this role she delivers training courses for the

ergonomic tool RAMSIS on various CAD platforms and

provides consultancy and technical support to customers

concerning digital vehicle ergonomics in various CAD

systems. In addition she supports sales activities through

product presentations and feasibility studies for a range

of industrial requirements and applications.



Receive order from company to perform

operation

Crew muster on Vessel

Preperations for Vessel departure

Vessel navigate through restricted waters

(inshore)

Navigating in open waters

Arrival on site -navigating within field

Vessel departure

Approach to turbine

Pushing on – Technicians disembark/embark

Vessel clears structure

Vessel navigate to substation

Vessel approach substation and prepare for

cargo loading

Vessel loads cargo

Figure 10: Task Analysis

A MARINE DESIGN APPROACH TO WFSV BRIDGE LAYOUT DEVELOPMENT AND CREW TRANSFER

Documents

Transcript of A MARINE DESIGN APPROACH TO WFSV BRIDGE LAYOUT DEVELOPMENT AND CREW TRANSFER