Minutes of asce automated people mover standards committee
Download 39.95 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- First Meeting Session Westin Peachtree Hotel, Wednesday, June 3 rd : PRT Taskforce
- Presentation by Martin Lowson of Advanced Transport Systems
- Presentation by Jorgen Gustafsson of Vectus PRT
- Presentation by Robbert Lohmann of 2GetThere
- Summary by Bob Griebenow
- Presentation on the IEC 62267 AUGT Systems Safety Standard
- Closing of the first meeting session
- Approval of minutes from Tampa MEETING
- INTERNATIONAL DATABASE
- WEB SITE REPORT (APMSTANDARDS.ORG)
- International Airport APM Association
- APM INJURY/ACCIDENT REPORT
- MODEL ELEVATOR LAW, (MEL), and the State of Colorado
- System Safety Program PLANS
- WINTER Meeting
- MOTION
- NEW BUSINESS
- However, the above wording has not reached a consensus within the working group and is shown here for information only.
| MINUTES OF ASCE AUTOMATED PEOPLE MOVER STANDARDS COMMITTEE
ATLANTA, JUNE 3rd & 4th, 2009 Meeting held at the Westin Peachtree Plaza Hotel, 210 Peachtree Street, Atlanta (first day), and Atlanta Airport Executive Conference Center (second day). OPENING: Larry Smith opened the meeting at 2:00 PM Wednesday, June 3rd. A number of guests and interested parties were present because of the APM Conference that had taken place over the preceding two and one-half days, so Larry asked that everyone introduce themselves. Fifty-three people attended the first day, thirty-three the second day, as listed below. Names marked with a single asterisk attended the June 3rd session only. A double asterisk indicates attendance on June 4th only. ATTENDEES: Larry Smith, Chairman Tom McGean, Past Chair Tedd Snyder, Vice-Chair Chuck Elms, Self employed Paul Didrikson, Secretary Denise Burleson, Lea+Elliott Mike Shumack, Configuration & Webmaster Redjean Clerc, Siemens TS Jonathan Esslinger, ASCE T&DI Jim Fletcher, Parametrix Steven Poerschmann, Atlanta Airport Michael Deiparine, Parametrix Victor Howe, Washington Dulles Airport Diane Morse – FAA Ortfried Friedreich, Axis Engineers David Taliaferro, DFW Int’l Airport Peter DeLeonardis, Stanley Access Tech. John Kapala, IAC- Atlanta Airport Mike Riseborough, GTAA Catherine Cronin, Newark Airport Rudiger vom Hovel, TÜV Rheinland Kenny Williams, Jacksonville (JTA) Thomas Rettig, TÜV Rheinland of N.A. Diego Parra, Houston Airport System Richard Prell, Conductix – Wampfler Douglas Baird, Parsons Kevin Jensen, Conductix – Wampfler Matt Barkley, Bombardier Michael Ang, MHIA Murthy Bondada, Consultant Darin Friedman, MHIA **Peter Muller, PRT Consulting Martin Lowson, Advanced Transport Systems *Sam Lott, Kimley Horn & Assoc. *Bob Dunning, Advanced Transit Assoc. *David Holdcroft, BAA Heathrow *Dean Hurst, Jakes Associates *Adrian vanden Enden, GTAA *Matt McDoe, T&DI President *Raed Dwairi, CPUC *Bob Griebenow, Berger/ABAM *Ralf Wiesenberg, ACS *Didier Dupre, Alstom Transport *Robbert Zohmann, 2GetThere *Bill Showalter, Advanced Transit Services * Masaki Kuwabara, IHI Corp. *Akira Morisada, Nippon Signal Co. * Stéphane Dubois, RATP *Diego Cocco, Systematica *Anselme Cote, Chairman IEC TC9 *Jorgen Gustafsson, Vectus PRT *André Danne, RATP * John Champ, Crystal Mover Services *Harley Moore, Lea+Elliott LOGISTICS: Steve Poerschmann, meeting host, described the location of the meeting room for the second day of meetings (Atlanta Airport Executive Conference Center), as well as other logistics. John Champ of Crystal Mover Services, sponsor of the Wednesday evening dinner, described the logistics and location (Bentley’s Steak House at the Airport Marriott South). First Meeting Session Westin Peachtree Hotel, Wednesday, June 3rd: PRT Taskforce: Bob Griebenow, Task Leader, introduced the PRT taskforce. He stated that PRT suppliers who have been involved in the process have listed areas of the Standard with which they have issues. The two primary areas of difficulty appear to be the ‘brick wall stop’ and movements within station areas. The intention for the June 3rd session is to have an open discussion in an attempt to reach consensus. Sam Lott described his efforts over the past several months related to this issue. He had visited and/or interviewed by telephone or e-mail the following PRT/GRT suppliers / developers: (a) Martin Lowson of ATS at Heathrow (b) Jorgen Gustafsson of Vectus in Uppsala, Sweden, (c) Mike Lester of Taxi 2000 (by telephone) (d) Gene Nishinaga of CyberTran International (by telephone) (e) Robbert Lohmann of 2GetThere (by e-mail). The purpose of the interviews was to obtain the input of PRT/GRT suppliers / developers regarding the functionality requirements of the APM Standard, and in particular the matter of the brick-wall stop criteria for safe train separation along the guideway. Sam has collected their comments and discussed them within the taskforce, but is not at liberty to release them to the full committee because some of the information is proprietary. The Command & Control Taskforce (Chaired by Redjean Clerc, with members: Charlie Martin, Jim Hoelscher, Jorge Nahke, and Ray Warner) was formed in February 2008 to study these issues. Redjean addressed the meeting stating that the taskforce has learned a considerable amount about how the proposed PRT systems operate, and has considered how these systems could be accommodated within the Standard, particularly with respect to Section 5.1.1 ”Presence Detection” and Section 5.1.2 “Separation Assurance”. He suggested that it might be necessary to add a section to the standard addressing off-line stations. If such a section was added, it would apply to all technologies, not just PRT. He stated that the Atlanta meeting is an opportunity to discuss and learn more. (See also Attachment One, provided by Redjean).
The Heathrow system is now subject to the “Railway and other Guided Transport Systems” regulations, or ROGS. The ULTra PRT system produced by ATS falls into a class operating at speeds of less than 25 mph. ROGS requires suppliers to: (a) establish a written safety verification scheme; and (b) appoint a “competent person” who must undertake the safety verification. ULTra have appointed as their “competent person” a safety verification team including Chris Elliott, Steve Firth, John May, and Paul Fairbairn. In response to a question from Tom McGean, Martin Lowson stated that the present design assumptions for ULTra do include the brick-wall stop, but that in the future they may ask that this requirement be relaxed. Martin was not able to say whether the ROGS regulations presently include such a requirement, but mentioned that the ROGS tend to retain historical principles. Martin stated that safety cases prepared in the U.K. are required to include calculations of the probability of “Fatalities and Weighted Injuries”, where one fatality is taken as being equal to ten serious injuries or 200 minor injuries.
Vectus have conditional approval to operate their test track, and they are now in a monitoring phase. Jorgen stated that he believes the Vectus system is compliant with the APM Standard. He had suggested using the APM Standard to Swedish authorities, but he said that they were more comfortable with European standards. Presentation by Robbert Lohmann of 2GetThere: The history of the 2GetThere PRT system goes back to a 1995 pilot project at Schiphol airport. The system uses magnets in the running surface for guidance, and has an obstacle detection system. Mr. Lohmann stated that in the development of the 2GetThere PRT system, all relevant international standards were reviewed, but it was concluded that no standard existed that was applicable to their technology. He stated that the Masdar project, which will use a 2GetThere PRT system, will have an independent safety assessor, using a process similar to that described by the Vectus and ULTra suppliers. Summary by Bob Griebenow: Bob stated that the conversation that had been started over the past sixteen months between the PRT community and the APM Standards Committee should continue. He volunteered to continue to lead the effort of the PRT taskforce, and assign tasks. MOTION: Tom McGean moved, seconded by Chuck Elms, that the PRT Command & Control Taskforce chaired by Redjean Clerc is tasked to generate specific wording for off-line station operation at reduced speed. The motion passed. Presentation on the IEC 62267 AUGT Systems Safety Standard: André Danne and Anselme Cote presented a summary of the work that has been done over the past seven years to produce the IEC 62267 Automated Urban Guided Transport system standard. André expressed his gratitude for the work done by Sam Lott, who provided valuable input to the AUGT taskforce, including some from members of the APM Standards Committee. Sam commented that the AUGT standard has a different scope than the APM standard, in that the AUGT standard covers only safety-related items caused by the absence of a driver, whereas the APM Standard defines minimum requirements for a complete APM system. Tom McGean commented about the reasons that the APM Standard is written the way it is:
Closing of the first meeting session: Sam Lott expressed the appreciation of the Committee that the visitors (representatives of ATS, Vectus, 2GetThere and RATP), had changed their plans to stay for the Wednesday afternoon session with the APM Standards Committee. Larry Smith closed the session. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Second Session APM Standards Committee Meeting Atlanta Airport Executive Conference Center Thursday, June 4th: Opening Second Session: Larry Smith reconvened the second session of the meeting at 8:30 AM and expressed the committee’s appreciation to our meeting host Steve Poerschmann, Atlanta Airport, for providing the meeting room, refreshments, lunch, AV’s, and coordinating the CONRAC tour and presentation provided by Darin Friedmann and Mike Ang, MHIA, John Kapala, IAC, and the Wednesday evening dinner provided by John Champ, Crystal Mover Service, at Bentley’s Steak House Restaurant. The committee operates without a budget and relies on hosts and sponsors to facilitate our meetings. Approval of minutes from Tampa MEETING: A motion was made by Tom McGean to accept the minutes, seconded by Mike Shumack. The motion carried. Mike Riseborough of GTAA was thanked for volunteering to perform the task of Secretary at the Tampa meeting. Report from the Atlanta APM Conference: Jon Esslinger stated that the total attendance at the APM Conference was 253, and that the technical sessions were well attended. Twenty-two of the available twenty-four exhibit spaces were sold. The steering committee had deliberately increased the focus on PRT and automated transit for this conference. The proceedings were made available to participants in a hard-copy book rather than a CD. This is due to economic considerations – hard copies are more economical for small quantities (when ASCE produces CDs, some development cost is involved because they provide search capability etc.). There were requests to make the presentations available in addition to the papers. This may be done, but the logistics will probably take a year. For future conferences ASCE will probably ask presenters to send the PowerPoint files in advance. The 2011 conference will probably be in Paris, with Siemens Transport Systems as a major sponsor. The 2013 conference will be back in North America, possibly Phoenix or Vancouver. There is some discussion about changing the name of the conference from APM to Automated Transit. MEMBERSHIP REPORT: The committee membership is presently balanced, with: (a) Producer 28 members 37.8% (b) Consumer 29 members 39.2% (c) General Interest 17 members 23.0% Within the General Interest category, the sub-category of Regulatory members is required to be within the range of 5 to 15%. We are presently at 5.4%. Therefore we need more Regulatory members if we wish to add to any other category of membership. Doppelmayr Cable Car has requested membership on the Committee, because apparently their two previous representatives (Frank Mauderer and Dieter Jussel) have left the company. This request could be accommodated while maintaining balance if Frank and Dieter would request to be moved to the general interest category. INTERNATIONAL DATABASE: Rudiger vom Hovel stated that the database is presently missing some projects, including Brescia, Rome, Thessaloniki and Budapest. The situation is confusing in Europe regarding urban systems. There is no general rule regarding certification across Europe; it is ad hoc. The European Commission has a project underway (led by TÜV) to look into this issue, and to attempt to get to a uniform process. Rudiger estimates that this project will go on for three years. Following discussion, Rudiger vom Hovel agreed to review the list, incorporate the information that was presented by RATP on June 3rd, and submit the list for review at the next meeting. WEB SITE REPORT (APMSTANDARDS.ORG): Mike Shumack explained that there are two views available on the website: the public screens and the members-only screens, which are accessible using a password. Mike places information on the website that is approved by the Committee. A “new look” version of the website has been developed with help from a member of Mike Riseborough’s staff. Mike Shumack showed the “new look” screens to the meeting to obtain approval to change the website to the new version. There was general agreement in the meeting that the new version was a significant improvement. Mike agreed to implement the change over the next couple of weeks. He will incorporate minor changes from comments made in the meeting. NFPA UPDATE: Rod Falvey was not present in the meeting, but had sent a message to the Chair indicating that there was no significant change in status. International Airport APM Association: Mike Shumack indicated that Victor Howe is the new president of the association. There has been some discussion within the association of opening up membership to non-airport users. This will involve a name change, possibly to “APM Users Group”. APM INJURY/ACCIDENT REPORT: Mike Riseborough reported that there has been no new information reported since the Tampa meeting. The main source of information has been the press. He solicited e-mail notification from Committee members if they become aware of incidents. Recommended Practice Document: Mike Riseborough (representing the taskforce including Gary Houts and David Taliaferro) presented a rough draft of a document titled “Recommended Practice for Working Safe near an APM”. After the document was presented to the meeting, the Chair suggested that we carry the process forward for incorporating this recommended practice into the Standard. It should be put into the Recommended Practice format dictated by ASCE. The Chair asked Tom McGean to review the document after it was in the required format, after which it should be sent to members of the Committee to solicit their comments. Then we can have a line-by-line review at the next meeting. MOTION: Tom McGean moved, seconded by Doug Baird, that the taskforce proceed with this recommended practice document, incorporating the advice provided by the Committee. The motion passed. NOISE IN TUNNELS: At a previous meeting, the Chair appointed the following as tunnel noise task force members; Chuck Elms (Leader) Frank Culver, Rod Falvey, Jorg Nanke, Doug Baird and Khan Sorkhorn. At the Atlanta meeting Chuck Elms stated that the recommendation of the task force was not to set noise limits in tunnels. The APM Standard sets limits to the noise emitted by an APM in a free field. Many factors influence the noise level in tunnels, including tunnel dimensions, the finish of tunnel walls, and the construction materials used, making it very difficult to predict noise levels in tunnels, particularly if the contractor does not have control of the tunnel construction. MOTION: Jim Fletcher moved, seconded by Redjean Clerc, that the Committee should accept Chuck Elm’s analysis. The motion passed. Following some discussion, Chuck Elms agreed to prepare a “Commentary” related to this issue. This should be added to the agenda for the next meeting. MODEL ELEVATOR LAW, (MEL), and the State of Colorado: Following a request from the State of Colorado, Jim Fletcher had agreed to create a set of 75 test questions based on the APM Standard, which the State could use in a test for mechanics. A set of questions has been developed for Part 1, and the questions for the remaining parts will follow. Tom McGean expressed his concern that the APM Standards Committee should not be seen as providing these test questions or endorsing the process of testing mechanics to the provisions of the Standard. Jim Fletcher agreed that when the test questions are transmitted to the State, he will write a covering letter on his own (Parametrix) letterhead stating that the test questions are being provided by him based on his expertise and have not been authored by the Committee. Steve Poerschmann commented on the reason for the original motion, which he made at the Connecticut meeting. The motion was read, and the conclusion was that the Committee has fulfilled its commitment System Safety Program PLANS: Catherine Cronin reported on the issue of the somewhat different requirements of System Safety Program Plans required by the FRA and those required by the APM Standard. One example is the fact that the FRA requires SSPPs to be “reviewed and annually updated”, a requirement not explicitly stated in the APM Standard. Some of the requirements missing from Part 1 of the APM Standard appear in Part 4. In the next issue of Part 1, it would be appropriate to state that there are related requirements in Part 4. Catherine has a draft document showing the comparison of the two sets of requirements, which she will circulate. Tom McGean was tasked with approaching the ASCE Codes & Standards Committee to determine whether we could make changes to Part 1 without waiting for the re-affirmation cycle, or whether, for example, we could issue a supplement. Part 1 has to be re-issued in 2010 anyway according to the re-affirmation schedule. FUTURE MEETING PLANS: Darin Friedman and Michael Ang presented their proposal for holding the September meeting at Dulles airport, where substantial completion of the MHI APM system is scheduled for the end of July. MOTION: Tom McGean moved, seconded by Peter DeLeonardis, that the next meeting of the Committee be held at Washington Dulles Airport, on September 24th and 25th, 2009 with the cooperation of MHI and Victor Howe. The motion passed. Victor Howe indicated that for security reasons, birthdates and photo ID may be required for the tour of the APM system. WINTER Meeting: Diego Parra stated that he has submitted a request to the Director of Houston Airport to hold the winter meeting there. There is a Marriott hotel on the airport, and a WEDway people mover that can be used to get to a conference room in the main terminal that would be used for the meeting. The maintenance facility, presently managed by Johnson Controls would be part of the tour. The dates of the meeting are not yet fixed, but would be in late February 2010, avoiding President’s Day. MOTION: Tom McGean moved, seconded by Diane Morse, that the winter meeting of the Committee be held at Houston Airport. The motion passed. T&DI REPORT: Jonathan Esslinger gave the T&DI report, which is attached as an appendix. Re-Affirmation STATUS of ASCE 21: PARTS 1, 2, 3 and 4: Tedd Snyder showed a schedule of the required activities and dates for re-affirmation of the Standard. Part 1 was last published in 2005, so the new version needs to be dated 2010 or 2011. Tedd showed the names of persons who provided content for the 2005 edition, and solicited volunteers for the re-affirmation effort. Kenny Williams volunteered to contribute to the safety requirements section, supporting Catherine Cronin and William Hathaway. Redjean Clerc agreed to provide a form for suggested changes (old wording, new wording, technical reason for the change). The plan is that the internal Committee work starts now, and by June of 2010 it should be completed, so that public comment can be solicited in the summer of 2010 and reviewed in September 2010. This allows one year for publication. TOUR: A tour and technical presentation of the CONRAC APM system and its maintenance facility was provided by Darin Friedman, Michael Ang, John Champ and John Kapala. The tour took place between 1:50 pm and 4 pm. NEW BUSINESS: There was no new business. ADJOURNMENT: Diane Morse made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Diego Parra. The motion passed, and the meeting was adjourned at 4:05 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Paul Didrikson, P. Eng. Secretary, ASCE APM Standards Committee ATTACHMENT ONE Some of Sam's conclusion from his contact with PRT suppliers: "APM Standard should not prescribe any "rules" that limited their ability to provide a creative and unique design...". "... that such flexibility with the interpretation / application of the standards is becoming an increasing problem within Europe. It has to be noted that the usefulness of a standard is quickly diluted when it is possible to easily take exception, and still technically “comply” with the standard in the eyes of the official body overseeing the standard." It is recommended that: "we should not compromise the ASCE APM Standard too quickly by building in exceptions and loop-holes before the PRT/GRT industry has matured and design concepts are fully proven." Main conclusions of the PRT C&C working group: No detailed/specific requirements for PRT. No changes to the APM Standard. It is recommended that we would not go about creating a PRT specific Part V to the standard. Rather, we should let the suppliers develop their designs and see how many really find it impossible to comply with the APM Standard as it stands today. Apparently some suppliers are not having as much trouble developing a compliant design as others. Let the design be subjected to industry standard V&V as per Part I section 3.4. It is suggested that we modify the proposed Hazard Analysis language to that below and that we let it be our interpretation that we give to the PRT industry representatives of how to apply the APM Standard to the various developing PRT designs. First wording proposition: Pending the establishment of PRT/GRT industry norms and design practices that have been proven to be safe, the general principles of safety design should be recognized by the owners and safety regulatory agencies. These principles should be a consideration in the selection of the PRT/GRT system supplier, and the Authority Having Jurisdiction should fully participate with the system suppliers in the safety design process, with consideration of the following: "For systems that employ alternative means to achieve the functions listed below in special operating areas (e.g., offline stations), the operation in these areas and the means utilized must be shown to eliminate all 'unacceptable' and 'undesirable' hazards. This analysis shall be completed in accordance with 3.1.2 Hazard Resolution Process and 3.1.2.1 Hazard analyses." Second wording proposition (2nd version): "For systems that employ alternative means to achieve the functions listed below in special operating areas (e.g., offline stations), the operation in these areas and the means utilized must be shown to eliminate all 'unacceptable' and 'undesirable' hazards. This shall be accomplished via a design/safety verification and validation (V&V) process completed in accordance with ANSI/ASCE/T&DI 21-05 ,3.4Verification and Validation. However, the above wording has not reached a consensus within the working group and is shown here for information only. Page of Directory: Linked%20Documents Linked%20Documents -> Minutes of asce automated people mover standards committee Linked%20Documents -> Draft mar 14, 2008 Safety Oversight Agencies for North American apm systems Download 39.95 Kb. Share with your friends:
|