Minutes of asce automated people mover standards committee
Download 94.02 Kb.
|
| MINUTES OF ASCE AUTOMATED PEOPLE MOVER STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Reston, Va. - September 24th and 25th, 2009 Meeting held at Dulles Airport – Conference Room B in the non-secure area near the baggage carousels. OPENING: Larry Smith opened the meeting at 9:00 AM Thursday, September 24th. Some new members and guests were present, so Larry asked that everyone introduce themselves. ATTENDEES: Larry Smith, Chairman Chuck Elms, consultant Tedd Snyder, Vice-Chair Charlie Martin, Lea+Elliott Paul Didrikson, Secretary Rod Falvey, Lea+Elliott Mike Shumack, Configuration & Webmaster Ray Warner, Walt Disney Co. Victor Howe, Washington Dulles Airport Michael Deiparine, Parametrix Ortfried Friedreich, Axis Engineers David Taliaferro, DFW Int’l Airport Mike Riseborough, GTAA Richard Prell, Conductix – Wampfler Gary Houts, Tampa International Airport Douglas Baird, Parsons Santiago Ruan, Doppelmayr Matt Barkley, Bombardier Geoffrey Baskir, Parsons Brinckerhoff Michael Ang, MHIA Dick Rhoton, Bombardier Darin Friedman, MHIA Kevin Dow, APTA Peter Muller, PRT Consulting Yves Clarissou, Siemens Transportation Systems Roy Fuller, MWAA (present only part-time) LOGISTICS: Victor Howe of Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority and Roy Fuller, Manager of the Maintenance Engineering Division of MWAA, meeting hosts, welcomed participants. Darin Friedman of MHIA gave the details of the technical tour of the Dulles AeroTrain system. NOISE IN TUNNELS: Chuck Elms presented the Commentary regarding interior and exterior noise limits in tunnels that he had drafted following the request of the Chairman at the Atlanta meeting to do so. The proposed commentary is appended as Attachment 1. A line-by-line review of the commentary was performed by the Committee. MOTION: Charlie Martin moved, seconded by Mike Riseborough, that the Committee should accept Chuck Elms’ commentary and present it for a ballot. The motion passed. NOISE IN STATIONS: Chuck Elms proposed that in the future the Committee may want to revise Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 to avoid or correct the fact that this section presently requires a measurement in a reflective environment (i.e. in a passenger station). Chuck proposed that it might be more logical to measure the noise emitted by the vehicle in a free field by placing noise measuring instruments at the door openings to measure the noise emitted by the vehicle/train/APM system. Considerable discussion followed, with Ray Warner suggesting that it is necessary to obtain noise spectra, not just amplitudes, to properly address the acoustic treatment of a passenger station. Ray mentioned that ASTM Standard 2291 for amusement park rides has a comprehensive treatment of similar noise issues. A working group (already established) led by Chuck Elms and including Ray Warner, Martin Lowson, and Rod Falvey will consider these issues as part of the reaffirmation of Part 1. Approval of minutes from ATLANTa MEETING: Paul Didrikson stated that comments received from Anselme Cote of RATP in June regarding the minutes from Atlanta will be attached to those minutes as an addendum. A motion was made by Mike Shumack to accept the minutes (including the addendum), seconded by Doug Baird. The motion carried. APM UserS Group: Mike Shumack stated that the name of the International Airport APM Association (IAAPMA) has been changed to APM Users Group to reflect the fact that its membership is no longer restricted to airport APM operators. The present membership has about thirty airports and one non-airport. Victor Howe is the president of the APM Users Group. NFPA UPDATE: Rod Falvey stated that the 2010 edition of NFPA 130 is issued and available for purchase. The revisions in the new edition include: (a) metric conversions that properly reflect the required precision, and (b) clarification of the requirements for handrails for raised walkways. Rod’s presentation is Attachment 6. MODEL ELEVATOR CODE: Michael Deiparine reported that he is not aware of any new enactments of the MEC into state laws, but it is possible that some may have occurred without his knowledge. He stated that he had applied for an inspector’s license and obtained it without too much trouble. It required references, but no test. Larry Smith stated that ASME created the requirements to become a Qualified Elevator Inspector, and that ASCE has the capability to define a Diplomat role in selected areas of expertise, and that type of certification may be useful in the APM industry. After some discussion on this topic a motion was proposed: MOTION: Doug Baird moved, seconded by Rod Falvey, that the Committee should study the idea of creating a qualification requirement for APM installation, inspection, operation and maintenance personnel. The motion passed. Mike Shumack, Gary Houts, Doug Baird and Michael Deiparine agreed to work on this issue, starting by reviving the work previously done. IEC WORKING GROUP 45: Larry Smith summarized Sam Lott’s report, which is appended as Attachment 2, stating that the committee had successfully participated in this international effort and that the result is not in contradiction to the APM Standard. The IEC Working Group continues its efforts; it is presently preparing a technical report that will be a complementary document to the safety standard. The most recent meeting of the Working Group was September 9-11, 2009 in Tokyo. PRT COMMAND & CONTROL Taskforce: Yves Clarissou presented proposed wording for an addition to Section 5, Part 1 (Attachment 3). Some discussion followed, during which the opinion was expressed that the Standard should not allow collisions at any level of speed or jerk with passengers on board. Larry Smith asked the Working Group to modify the wording of the proposed addition and to send out an advance copy by the end of the year so that a line-by-line review can be performed at the Houston meeting and thus the wording may be ready in time for the re-affirmation of Part 1. WEB SITE REPORT (APMSTANDARDS.ORG): Mike Shumack reported that the new version of the website is up and running as discussed and approved in Atlanta. If anyone has any comments or suggestions, they can send them to Mike or to “Administrator” on the website (such messages also go to Mike Shumack). INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY DATABASE: The material prepared by Rudiger vom Hovel was presented. There was discussion regarding whether the material should be placed on the website (with a suitable disclaimer, and with a “last updated” date shown), and whether additional data fields should be added showing items such as system supplier and system length. The conclusion was that Mike Shumack will send the file to Committee members (or send them a message including a pointer to the file) requesting corrections and updates. MEMBERSHIP REPORT: Chairman reported that membership is presently balanced, with: (a) Producer 28 members 36.8% (b) Consumer 29 members 38.2% (c) General Interest 19 members 25.0% 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 5.3%. Therefore we need more Regulatory members if we wish to add to any other category of membership. Membership is limited to two members per company or organization. New members Kevin Jensen of Conductix, and Santiago Ruan and Thomas Narbeshuber of Doppelmayr were welcomed to membership on the Committee. PRESENTATION BY DARIN FRIEDMANN: Darin made a presentation on the Dulles AeroTrain system in preparation for the tour. Mitubishi supplied the system under a design, build, operate, maintain (DBOM) contract. The ATC system was by Thales, and some other subsystems were supplied by Rail Works. The system will operate 3-car trains initially, 4-car trains in the ultimate version. The initial alignment is in the shape of a “J”, while the ultimate alignment will be a complete loop of 16 km with 10 stations and a fleet of 58 cars. TOUR: A tour of the AeroTrain APM system was provided by Darin Friedman, Michael Ang and Victor Howe. The tour took place between 3:00 pm and 4:30 pm. Friday, September 25th FUTURE MEETING PLANS: The winter meeting will be held February 25th and 26th, 2010 at Houston International Airport, hosted by Diego Parra. The site of the Spring - Summer 2010 meeting is still not finalized. Possibilities include: Seattle (Tedd Snyder could discuss with Bob Griebenow); Vancouver (Canada Line) – Richard Prell has had some discussions with SNC-Lavalin; or Mexico City – hosted by Doppelmayr. The consensus of the meeting, by show of hands, was that Seattle or Vancouver would be the preferred venue. Note: According to Kevin Dow, an APTA Rail Conference will be held in Vancouver June 6th to 9th, 2010. Siemens offered to host the Spring 2011 meeting in Paris in conjunction with the APM Conference to be held there. 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 stated that the Working Groups should plan to complete their work by the end of the calendar year 2009. Line-by-line review of proposed changes can be performed at the Houston meeting, then public comment can be solicited in the summer of 2010 and reviewed in September 2010. This allows one year for publication. APM INJURY/ACCIDENT REPORT: Mike Riseborough presented a report (Attachment 4) showing three accidents involving fatalities. These were: 1. Miami Metromover – midnight June 20th, 2009 2. Washington Metro - June 22, 2009 3. The Disney monorail in Orlando The main source of information has been the press. Not included, but mentioned in the meeting, was the Thanksgiving 2008 incident at Miami Airport. Report from APTA on the WMATA Accident: Kevin Dow (Program Manager, Technical Services, APTA) presented a report on the Washington Metro accident of June 22, 2009. The report is an attachment to the minutes distribution. Information can also be found on the front page of www.wmata.com. Kevin stated that APTA has completed a Peer Review session, held a meeting with NTSB, and that APTA will be formulating a letter on the incident. The discussion that followed revolved around the new safety advisory that NTSB issued on September 22nd. The discussion focused on the need for more rigorous testing of safety-related systems to ensure that “sneak circuits”, unintended circuit paths and similar issues are discovered and corrected before they cause problems. ASME RAIL STANDARDS COMMITTEE RT-2: Tedd Snyder presented a report from Tom McGean regarding the efforts of the ASME Rail Standards Committee to look into issues regarding structural strength of vehicles. The report is appended as Attachment 5. Recommended Practice Document: Mike Riseborough (representing the taskforce including Gary Houts and David Taliaferro) presented a draft of a document titled “Recommended Practice for Working Safe near an APM”. A line-by-line was performed. It was suggested to add an incident reporting section, perhaps titled “Incident Reporting and Review”. It was also suggested to explicitly include equipment rooms, substation rooms, and other potentially hazardous areas (in addition to the guideway itself). The document should probably reference the System Safety Program Plan (Section 3.1.1 of Part 1). Mike Shumack will investigate the mechanics of how the Recommended Practice should be incorporated into the Standard. INTERPRETATION OF THE APM STANDARD / NFPA 130: Al Hartkorn had requested an interpretation of the APM Standard regarding the location of Blue Light stations at the end of station platforms (i.e. should they be accessible from the platform or only from the guideway). Al had already received a response from NFPA on this topic, and since the APM Standard references NFPA in relation to this requirement it was felt that the Committee could not offer any further interpretation or clarification beyond that provided by NFPA. It was noted that NFPA stated that they will clarify this issue in the 2013 edition of their standard. T&DI REPORT: Tedd Snyder distributed Jonathan Esslinger’s T&DI report in Jon’s absence. ASCE membership application forms were also distributed. The T&DI report will be distributed along with the meeting minutes. NEW BUSINESS: Chuck Elms stated that it is essential for Committee members who are involved in the review and revision of the Standard for reaffirmation to have electronic copies of the Standard in order to perform the reaffirmation work. If necessary, such members can sign a document stating that they will not distribute the document to others. Larry Smith agreed to approach that ASCE Codes and Standards Committee on this topic. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The Chairman explained the procedure used in locating meeting sites and stressed that our meetings are not funded by ASCE and rely on the generous support of members and their organizations. The Dulles meeting was made possible with the commitment of a meeting room with AV support and APM tour from MWAA, lunch provided be Lee + Elliott, continental breakfast on Thursday provided by Thales, continental breakfast on Friday provided by MHIA and the excellent dinner at Il Fornaio in Reston hosted by MHIA & Sumitomo Corp of America. Darin Friedmann and Michael Ang, MHIA were overall host coordinators and also arranged the hotel room block and transportation to and from the meeting room. ADJOURNMENT: Mike Shumack made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Charlie Martin. The motion passed, and the meeting was adjourned at 12:00 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Paul Didrikson, P. Eng.
1. Noise in Tunnel Commentary for balloting - Chuck Elms 2. IEC Working Group 45 report – Sam Lott 3. PRT Command & Control Taskforce – proposed wording for addition to Section 5, Part 1 4. APM Injury / Accident Report – Mike Riseborough 5. ASME Rail Standards Committee RT-2 report – Tom McGean 6. NFPA 130 report & update – Rod Falvey
APPENDED TO MINUTES: T&DI Directors report – Jon Esslinger APTA report on WMATA Incident – Kevin Dow
Attachment 1: Noise in Tunnel Commentary for balloting - Chuck Elms Interior and Exterior Noise Limits in Tunnels
The following commentary is provided as an explanation of why the Standard does not specify noise limits inside buildings and tunnels. The conditions for measuring vehicle exterior airborne noise are specified in Section 2.2.1, ANSI/ASCE/T&DI 21 as: “(3) Under all normal operating conditions in a free field, 15m (50 feet) from guideway centerline and from 1.5m (5 feet) above ground level to 1.5m (5 feet) above guideway running surface.”
The conditions for measuring vehicle interior noise are specified in Section 7.7.4, ANSI/ASCE/T&DI 21 as: “…with all auxiliary equipment operating. All noise measurements are to be taken in a free field environment, with no passengers (up to three test personnel permitted) in the vehicle. Interior noise levels shall be measured 1.5 m (5 feet) above the floor, above the suspension / running gear, and at the geometric center of the vehicle floor,…” A free field is defined in Section 1.5, ANSI/ASCE/T&DI 21 as: “An isotropic, homogeneous sound field that is free from all bounding surfaces.”
In both cases the vehicle is specified to be operating in a free field environment to determine purely the noise energy that is emitted from the train without any content of reflected noise or other noise generators that otherwise can compromise the measurements. When a vehicle/train is operated inside a tunnel or building, noise emitted from the APM system can be reflected and can increase the amplitude of the measured noise. Because the geometries, designs and surface materials of such structures can vary significantly it is not possible to know the extent that reflected noise may be experienced. Hence, neither consistent conditions nor standard tests exist for specifying noise limits in tunnels and buildings.
The current standard sets a limit on the noise level that can be emitted by an APM system. Designers of buildings and tunnels are provided with the limit of emitted noise level that they need as an input upon which they can base designs. Since they are in control of the architectural structure (size, shape, materials and reflective and absorptive surfaces) they are in control of what the resultant noise will be in a tunnel or building. Buyers of APM systems can specify noise limits taking into account the architectural designs they specify.
MEMORANDUM
Tom McGean, IEC TC9 TAG Member FROM: J. Sam Lott, U.S. TAG Representative, IEC TC9 Working Group 45
Please provide the following report to the September 2009 meeting of the ASCE APM Standards Committee at Dulles Airport. Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend. June Meeting of IEC TC9 WG45 – Following the joint session held between the ASCE APM Standards Committee and representatives of the IEC Working Group 45 in Atlanta on June 3,, 2009, the IEC Working Group 45 held a working session on June 4-5 in the Atlanta Midtown office of Kimley-Horn and Associates. The meeting saw progress on the current project activity to compile a Technical Report comprising the results of the generic Hazard Analysis that was developed to assist with the preparation of the IEC Safety Standard covering Automated Urban Guided Transport.
1. Supervising guideway / Prevent collision with obstacles 2. Supervising guideway / Prevent collision with persons 3. Supervising passenger transfer / control passenger doors 4. Supervising passenger transfer / Prevent person injuries between cars or between platform and train 5. Supervising passenger transfer / Ensure safe starting conditions 6. Operating a train / set in / set off operation 7. Operating a train / supervise status of train 8. Ensuring detection and management of potential emergency situations It should be remembered that the IEC safety standards have been developed only with respect to automated functions that compensate for the removal of the operator and other staff onboard the train. Therefore, other safety functions such as general ATP functions are not specifically addressed in this IEC standard or the associated Hazard Analysis Technical Report.
Under each of the functional categories listed above, the general hazards are addressed for each of the following aspects: Hazard, Cause, Trigger, Effect (Accident) Safeguard Does Safeguard compensate for no driver in DTO (Driverless Train Operation)? Does Safeguard compensate for no staff in UTO (Unattended Train Operation) Remarks IEC 62267 Section Reference Number
The current draft table of contents for the technical report is as follows: TECHNICAL REPORT RAILWAY APPLICATIONS AUTOMATED URBAN GUIDED TRANSPORT (AUGT) HAZARD ANALYSIS
CONTENTS INTRODUCTION......................................................................................... 1 Reasons for the hazard analysis............................................................... 2 Formation of the risk analysis team........................................................... 3 Definition of the system and main functions to be analysed.......................... 3.1 System.......................................................................................... 3.2 Main functions................................................................................ 4 Identification of primary hazards............................................................... 4.1 Collisions with obstacle................................................................... 4.2 Collisions with person...................................................................... 4.3 Injuries to persons associated to opening and closing passenger transfer doors................................................................................. 4.4 Injuries to persons between cars or between platform and train............. 4.5 Passenger injury during train starting................................................ 4.6 Harm to passengers in relation to taking the train out of operation or putting the train in operation............................................................. 4.7 Injury to persons related to emergency situations............................... 5 Hazard Analysis...................................................................................... 6 Risk Assessment.................................................................................... 7 Risk Analysis for a specific application...................................................... 8 Bibliography...........................................................................................
Attachment 3: PRT Command & Control Taskforce – proposed wording for addition to Section 5, Part 1
Section 5 – ASCE 21-05 (Part 1) Proposed additional Section for off-line station operation
Off-line station operation may consider three different zones: transition line for deceleration and acceleration, station line for vehicle positioning and docking zone. Transition line: When a vehicle leave the station to enter the main line area, this vehicle shall be detected by the vehicle on the main line and speed shall be adjusted accordingly (speed and position monitored by ATP). Interlocking between off-line vehicle and main line vehicle movement shall be in accordance with Section 5.1.14. Station line: Contact between vehicles may be acceptable at low speed if the contact speed is low enough to minimise damage to vehicles and passenger accidents (falling down). A low speed threshold monitored by ATP shall be assessed accordingly and a vehicle stopping function and traction inhibition activated when over speed is detected. Docking zone: No contact between vehicles shall occur when passenger are embarking/disembarking. The vehicle shall be stopped in accordance with Section 5.1.3. The brakes shall be strong enough to prevent vehicle movement. Rollback may be allowed if ATP Presence Detection function for the station line is in accordance with Section 5.1.1. For passenger embarking/disembarking, a dedicated zone shall be specified. If two zones are possible (vehicle line up configuration), the embarking zone shall be different from the disembarking zone. Passenger on platform and passenger embarking/disembarking safety shall be in accordance with Section 10.2 - Platform Edge Protection.
In order to understand and determine what are the risks in station area, let's give the follow two examples of PRT station layout:
Figure 1: Vehicle in separate dock at station
Figure 2: Vehicle in queue at station The members of this Working Group are: Charlie Martin, Lea Elliott Jim Hoelscher, Safetran Jorge Nahke, Logplan Ray Warner, Disney Sam Lott, Kimley Horn Jonathan Luedeke, Battelle Redjean Clerc, Siemens,(Chair)
Tables of Recent Incidents
ASME REACTION TO WMATA ACCIDENT Immediately after the WMATA fatal accident, ASME’s Rail Transit Standards Committee convened a telephone meeting. 12 members participated. It was established that the cars involved predate the current RT-2 structural standard. A working group was formed to follow up the NTSB investigations and determine whether any changes are needed to the RT-2 standard based on their findings. The committee also decided to explore further computer modeling of collision scenarios to cover override and telescoping, fatigue, and other situations. A face to face committee meeting is scheduled for October 13-14, 2009 at APTA offices at 1666 K St. NW starting at 9AM and lasting two full days. The WMATA incident will be covered. Any non-member who wishes to attend should contact Martin Schroeder (committee chair) at APTA.
• NFPA 130: Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems – Three Year Revision Cycle – Current 2010 Edition • Preprint can be viewed on WWW.NFPA.ORG • Hardcopy available for purchase
2010 Version Highlights • Allow elevators to be counted as contributing to the means of egress in stations. • Wire & Cable standards for all simplified FT4/IEEE 1202 exposure requirements and smoke release rate of ANSI/UL 1685. Or Flame spread and smoke in accordance with NFPA 262, • For Control & Low voltage ICEA Wire & Cable standards updated to replace “withdrawn” standards. • Revisions relating to stopping and reversing of escalators. • Clarification of handrails for raised walkways. • Vehicle floor assemblies tested to 15 minute criteria for AGT and 30 minutes for all others.
• Requirement expanded to consider vehicle ends as well as vehicle sides for Fire Resistance. • Clarified requirement that vehicle lockers require arc shielding if they contain equipment operating at greater than 300V. • The units in the standard have been updated in accordance with the Manual of Style for NFPA Technical Committee Documents. • Several fire scenarios have been added to Annex A to provide guidance on the types of fires that can occur in vehicles, stations, and the operating environment as well. • New Chapter 11 added for Control and Communication System Functionality, Reliability, and Availability. • Next revision cycle: – Proposals closing date 11/23/2009 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 94.02 Kb. Share with your friends:
|
