asce t&di - apm) standardsapmstandards.org/linked documents/february2005_miami.doc · web...

ASCE T&DIAUTOMATED PEOPLE MOVER STANDARDS COMMITTEE

MEETING MINUTES MIAMI, FLORIDA, USA FEBRUARY 10& 11, 2005

Attendees

Tom McGean Chairman Jim Johnson, Fl DOTLarry Smith Secretary Steve Yates, ATLJon Esslinger Director, T&DI Chris Smith, ATLMike Riseborough, GTAA Tedd Snyder, Booz Allen HamiltonAlex Klimmer, DDC John Dexter, Booz Allen HamiltonAl Hartkorn, Transit Safety Mike Venter, PMXTony Garcia, Clark County Gary Houts, TPAYves Clarissou, Siemens TS Mike Shumack, MCO Jim Hoelscher Safetran Bill Showalter, O&M ConsultantJim Fletcher, Parametrix John Champ, DIAPaul Didrikson, Bombardier Frank Culver, Washington GroupChuck Elm, Consultant John Kapala, IACSanjeev Shan, L+E (thur.) Ray Warner, Walt Disney Eng.Darin Friedmann, Mitsubishi HI Kamd Nokltech, L+E (fri)Peter DeLeonardis, Horton

1. OPENING: Tom McGean opened the meeting at 8:30 am, on Thursday, February 10, and welcomed the new attendees and asked the group to briefly introduce themselves. Tom asked Frank Culver to inform the group of the plans of the Washington Group for hosting the meeting and providing the tour of the Downtown APM..

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Yves Clarissou asked for a correction to a sentence in the minutes that as released read, “Section 14.2 and Table 14.1 are agreed to by the Committee during the line-by-line review, but with the additions of the definitions in the header and detailing of the quantities for AT.” The correction proposed reads, “Section 14.2 and Table 14.1 are agreed to by the Committee during the line-by-line review, with the additions of the definitions in the header. Table 14.1 contents to be reviewed at the next meeting”. Al Hartkorn made a motion to accept the proposed correction and approved the minutes and Steve Yates seconded and motion carried.

3. LOCATION OF NEXT TWO MEETINGS: The next meeting will be in Orlando on May 5&6, 2005, immediately after the ASCE APM Conference at Disney’s Coronado Springs Resort and Ray Warner of Disney will host. Ray will check on the suitability of a tour of the test track facility. The fall meeting is set for Toronto, Canada, September 22&23, 2005 hosted by Greater Toronto Aviation

Authority (GTAA). Tom introduced Mike Riseborough of GTAA and Mike confirmed that GTAA would host. Larry Smith gave the dates of the ACI/NA Conference on September 18-21 and the Elevator Conference on September 25-26, both in Toronto.

4. REPORT ON T&DI ACTIVITIES: Jon Esslinger presented his Director’s report of February 8, 2005 and distributed a copy of the 8 page report and a copy of the upcoming ASCE APM Conference Program to each attendee. Jon indicated that the next ASCE APM Conference may be set in Vienna Austria in 2007 and possibly Phoenix Arizona in 2009. Jon briefed the committee on the recent series of ASCE BRT workshops in Baltimore and Orlando and the scheduled workshops for Las Vegas and Los Angeles of March 3rd and March 9th respectively.

5. REPORT OF AIRPORT APM USERS: John Champ reported that he was the new chairman, Mike Shumack, V. P. and Victor Howe, secretary. They plan to meet sometime during the Orlando meeting.

6. REPORT ON MEMBERSHIP: Jon Esslinger gave a brief statement on the membership status and indicated that we were substantially full and in compliance with industry balance requirements at 65 members and have 2 pending candidates waiting for slots in specific categories. A long discourse on the ASCE rule that mandates dropping a member after failure to respond to two consecutive ballots enlightened the membership to this peril. It was also noted for the record that no new members could be added during the time of an open balloting process. Jon E. did state that Dennis Reed, California PUC, was added in a regulatory slot.

7. WEBSITE, DATABASE AND E-ROOM REPORT: Jon Esslinger gave an overview of the current status of the recent e-room upgrades and explained that ASCE had 1100 different e-rooms on the site and that has caused a backlog on IT people. After much discussion about the delay in merging the original APM Standards Comm. web site into the ASCE site, Steve Yates said he would provide the old website material to Mike Shumack who will maintain an interim website for us until Jon get an official ASCE site up and running. The Chairman emphasized that the database has also lost its home during the prolonged transition from the old website to the new ASCE website. Bob Griebenow was handling the Station data, Bill Hathaway, the US Regulatory data, (Alain Levy, European regulatory data?), Castleman and Kennedy, L+E, NFPA issues.

The Chairman also related that people outside the committee do not have access to the ASCE e-room, however Jon Esslinger related that the new website would have the ability of allowing others to log-on as Observers. After discussion, it appeared that a protocol could be developed for the Chairman to recognize people awaiting membership or serving the committee in other ways to obtain Observers status.

8. SESSION AT ORLANDO APM CONFERENCE: Larry Smith related that our

session would take place on wed. May 4, 2005 from 10:30 am until noon. Larry will be session moderator and deferred further discussion until after the next agenda item.

9. ADOPTION OF STANDARDS BY STATES THROUGH MODEL ELEVATOR CODE: The Chairman gave a briefing on the Adoption, of ASCE 21, ( APM Standards), into EIWPF Model Elevator code, (Elevator Industry Work Protection Fund), and read aloud specific sections that appear to conflict with the intent of ASCE 21. It was acknowledged that ASCE 21 is now law in at least 10 states that have adopted the model code, (AL,CA,GA,HI,IL,ME(part),RI,TX,VT(part), and others may be in the process.

During Dec/Jan and right up to this meeting, Tom and Larry made inquiries of a few members and their regulatory contacts and it appears that few people in the APM industry had any knowledge of this issue. An open committee discussion focused on many potential problems especially with ASCE 21 Part 4 sections dealing with APM Qualifications for SVAD, Inspections, Maintenance, and other Experience based requirements.

The Chairman called for volunteers to work on a task force to expedite a committee action. Larry Smith was asked to lead the task force and develop a draft of salient discussion points focused on the issues that appear to affect Public Safety and the intent of ASCE 21. The draft should be reviewed by ASCE Legal Department. Larry also added that this issue will be featured in our Session at the ASCE APM Conference and involve panelist with pertinent experiences involving this issue. Volunteers are Frank Culver, Bill Showalter, Peter DeLeonardis, Darin Friedman, Sanjeev Shan, Chuck Elms, Paul Didrickson, Alex Klimmer, Gary Houts, Tony Garcia and Tom McGean.

10. AWARDS PROGRAM: Tony Garcia was presented a Certificate of Appreciation for his work hosting the Las Vegas meeting. Steve Yates,

11. Awards chairman, explained the awards programs and suggested that three nominees for DSA (Distinguished Service Awards), be considered yearly at a budget of $200 each and $100 s&h. We would need to raise $1100 to fund one year as we are $400 overspent today. The committee discussion lead to a motion by John Dexter to continue an award program but that no further commitments to spend money are made until the Chairman is assured that the debt is paid and monies are available and deposited before considering any further awards. Motion was seconded by Al Hartkorn and carried.

12. DISCUSSION ON INTERPRETATION ON STANDARD –REQUESTED BY DOPPELMAYR RE: DOORS: The Chairman read a letter requesting

interpretation of ASCE 21 standards pertaining to doors-both vehicle and station. Specifically ASCE APM Standard Part 3 Section 10.2(4) Intrusion Prevention System, and Part 2 section 7.8 Doors, Access, and Egress and the cross linking of some of the language relating both sections. Tom read the letter request and the email answers developed with consultation from Frank Culver and Larry Smith. The full committee debated the questions and answers and by consensus agreed with the Chairman’s preliminary ruling. The Chairman will send a formal letter of response notifying Doppelmayr of the committee action and will also request a full committee ballot on the action.

13. IEC WORKING GROUP 39 & 40 REPORTS: The Chairman distributed a report

submitted by task leader Sam Lott and gave the highlights. Sam will not be able to attend the next meeting of the group scheduled for Vienna April 21-22, 2005 but he will help collect comments for the US delegation. It appeared that we will not have a member qualified to represent the US delegation attending the next meeting. (Note: In the interest of time, the Secretary sent an email to Sam after the meeting notifying him of this as the international meeting is .only two months away)

. 14. DISCUSSION OF ELECTRONIC ASCE BALLOT ISSUES: Jon Esslinger gave

comments regarding the first ever electronic balloting process and explained that several bugs had been discovered. A 77 % ballot response was good and sufficient and the subsequent ballot resolution process was greatly improved as all ballot comments were electronically captured and disseminated to the membership-thus eliminating the confusion and tedium of reading handwritten hard copied comments.

15. PART 1 REAFFIRMATIOM OF BALLOT RESOLUTION: The Chairman lead the committee through the ballot resolution process and will submit an official ballot resolution response in accordance with ASCE standards rules. A copy of the ballot resolution is attached to these minutes, Attachment A

16. COMPLETE LINE X LINE REVIEW OF SVAD (SYSTEM VERIFICATION & DEMONSTRATION), SECTION: Chuck Elms led the discussion and resolution of comments for the SVAD Chapter 14. Chuck Elms made a motion to create a separate chapter or section covering

“verification of the ASCE APM standards for the operating and maintenance manuals, (i.e., the documents that owners would use for the O&M)” and Recommended Practices for Acceptance and Demonstration. – Seconded by Larry Smith, and motion carried. A working group of: John Dexter, Frank Culver, Bill Showalter, Tony Garcia

and John Kapala will draft this new chapter. As a result, the “Recommended Practices for Acceptance and Demonstration” material presented in Chapter 14 will be deleted”

Considering the extensive connectivity of the previous debate regarding Item 9 Model Elevator Code, Gary Houts, Al Hartkorn, and Tony Garcia will draft a definition of qualification and experience related to inspectors regarding ASCE 21 interpretation. Chuck Elms will review this new concern with Chapter 14 as it may apply to

parts of Volumes I, II, and III of ASCE 21.Yves Clarissou led a review of Henri Frey’s written comments to Chuck regarding the 14.1 table. A motion to ballot Chapter 14 was made by Tedd Snyder, seconded by Tony

Garcia, and carried. It is intended that Chapter 14 will stand as now drafted and to be refined by Chuck Elms and prepared for balloting. The version as approved for ballot at the meeting is provided as Attachment B.

17. STATUS OF SECURITY SECTION: The Chairman related Bill Hathaway’s progress on the Security Section and asked for volunteers to contact Bill and expedite completion of the draft for final line x line review. Larry Smith and John Kapala volunteered and will contact Bill.

18. DISCUSSION OF PART 2 STRUCTURAL ISSUES: Yves Clarissou lead a discussion related to harmonizing the structural material in Part 2 with ASME and CEN structural standards using an analysis prepared by Siemens. The committee reviewed the various areas and recommended modifications to Part 2 in certain cases.Several items were approved by the committee subject to approval by Paul Didrickson who wished to check with Bombardier engineers. The attached chart, attachment C, reflects the results of this checking which in all cases concurred with the committee position. It will be necessary to define car body and bogie in order to use the material. This remains to be done. The resulting recommendations are included in the minutes as Attachment C

19. NEW BUSINESS: The Chairman defined the need for a Coordinator for Configuration Management who would keep the committee work posted on the web site and track the official versions of all works in progress. Mike Shumack volunteered and Tom appointed him to start this critical task.

The Chairman acknowledged the fine work of our host, Washington Group and Frank Culver for arranging and providing the transportation and tour of the Metromover system, the excellent dinner at the Rusty Pelican, Key Biscayne and the continental breakfasts and working lunch and breaks for the meeting. Tom remarked on the productivity of the committee in working through a rather large agenda which included significant new issues. Meeting adjourned at 3:50 pm.

Attachment A: Part 1 Ballot resolutions

Attachment B: Chapter 14 – Final version for balloting Attachment C: Part 2 Structural issues

Attachment A: Part 1 Ballot Resolution

American Society of Civil Engineers

Reaffirmation Ballot, "Automated People Movers Standard, Part 1"

Voters CommentsBallot Closing: 01/05/2005Printed:

1Affirm With Comment

Dupre, Didier Accepted with modified wording An editorial change will be made in Section 2.1 by John Dexter to reference non US ClimatesItem 1.3 :There are only USA standards considered in the list. We suggest to add to the list the opportunity to consider other families of standards, such as EN standards. EN standards are of large application over the world. This would make possible to suggest more easily APM standard application out of USA.

Additional general question relating to APM definition :We are still puzzled with the APM definition. How to segregate people movers systems falling in the metro category versus people movers category ? Comment rejected Covered previously Johnson, James Mike Non persuasive1.5 Add a definition for System Safety Program Plan (SSPP). The definition should be consistent with that in the Federal Transit Administration fixed guideway system state safety oversight regulations. The following definition is recommneded: "a document developed and adopted by the fixed guideway transportation system (in this case it could state "owner" or "operator") detailing its safety policies, objectives, responsibilites, and procedures. Martin, Charles All accepted as editorial changes1) Section 1.2/last sentance - Remove the "l" after "completely".

2) Section 1.4 - Add referances as follows:

IEEE Std 1474.1-2004, IEEE Standard for Communications-Based Train Control (CBTC) Performance and Functional Requirements (cited in 5)

NFPA 72-2002, (TITLE?)...(cited in 6.1.6)

3) Section 1.4 - For NFPA 130, change "(cited in 6.1)" to "(cited in 6.1.2)" so as to be consistent with other cited referances. Mc Gean, Thomas Accepted as editorial changeAdd in the references, Section 1.4, a reference to IEEE 1474, Communications Based Train Control which is reverenced in Chapter 5. Schrader, Obe Found nonpersuasiveSection 1.5 – Definition for Dynamic Sign – May want to add after, “changed;” “to reflect current or momentary conditions and messages.”

NegativeHartkorn, Albert Withdrawn by Mr. Hartkorn at meetingDefine 'System Safety Program Plan' (SSPP) as "a document adopted by (the operating agency/contractor)detailing safety policies, objectives, responsibilities, and procedures" [FTA Rule 659.5]. Sections 3.1, 3.1.1 & Annex A.1.1 offer various statements on what a SSPP means that are not consistent and, consquently provide a basis for misinterpretation on a apecific APM Project and between APM Systems being designed or in operation. See also comments on Annex A, A.1.1.


Howe, Victor Covered in Part 3 NonpersuasiveShould be a section for earthquakes. There should be a section for the system operating near the ocean.System must operate with all ambient conditions.


Dupre, Didier Item 3.1.2. : Resolution strategies.Previously considered by committee No new informationWe are not comfortable with the list due to non independency of different items of the list. It is particularly clear for item 6, that is always the aim of the process. We suggest 3 categories only, classified by priority: 1: eliminate the hazard. 2 : mitigation by design. 3 : mitigation by procedure.

Item 3.2 : Please note that there are known cases encountered in projects that do not allow to apply such general rule. As an example, broken rail or broken turn out cases cannot satisfy this general rule. No alternate wording provided. Rejected Hartkorn, Albert Non persuasiveUnder 3.1, delete the 'and' in "The System Safety Program and Plan".The System Safety Program Plan IS the Plan. Hoelscher, James accepted editorial change

Insert a blank line after item E Improbable - .. and before the paragraph that begins, "It is understood... (page 13 Table 1)

The paragraph is not part of the definition for improbable. The paragraph applies to all catagories (A through E). Johnson, James Mike Withdrawn by Mr Johnson at meetingThe description and purpose of the System Safety Program Plan should be consistent with the definition recommended for Chapter 1.

NegativeWarner, RaySuggest eliminating section 3.1 (2) as being too vague or otherwise encompassing. Withdrawn by Mr. Warner at meeting.

Section 3.1 (3) Suggest replacement wording..."Identify incident reporting structure." Reason: In large organizations it is more important to identify a clear incident reporting structure and hierarchy rather than specific individuals. I disagree with "accountability" as a reporting structure will imply responsibility and therefore accountability. Withdrawn by Mr. Warner at meeting

Section 3.1. The individual identified....I suggest that this sentence be eliminated as being redundant. Also in large companies the system safety program is an organization unto itself with its own internal reporting structure and "front line" people do not report directly to "Top" management. Also it is vague as to what "top" management is. Found nonpersuasive UNRESOLVED NEGATIVE REBALLOT

Section 3.1 (4) This section is redundant and already covered under 3.1 (3) (my suggested wording) Therefore this section should be stricken. Withdrawn by Mr. Warner at meeting

Section 3.1 (5) Suggest new wording..."Preventative maintenance procedures must be written for the expected life cycle of the product. These preventative maintenance procedures must take into account dynamic envelop maintenance wherever applicable." Reason...A hazard identification and resolution process must be done as part of the design and is used in the development of the PMs. Withdrawn by Mr. Warner at meeting

Section 3.1 (6) Suggest that this section be eliminated as being standard policy of any reasonably run company and if not, then this section would carry no weight anyway. Withdrawn by Mr. Warner at meeting


Smith, Lawrencethe colloquial expression "Grace Time" is used five times in Chapter 4 and capitalized each time. It is also used in sect 4.1.2 Exceptions, (1) almost as a definition. I believe the expression "Grace

Time" should be defined in Definitions section and include that it is an optional concept and may be zero but must be a constant for all cases if it is used at all. Found nonpersuasive

Sect 5.4 Manual Operation Limitations. First line, delete the word "extended" as it is subjective and not needed.Rejected No new information provided. Already considered


Dupre, Didier Item 5.1.2. : With regard to the stopping distance, we are not - comfortable with item 6 : worst case load. We do not understand why the worst case has to be considered considering that the load measurement can be reliably performed on the trains. We believe that this chapter is confusing : does it relay to the stopping distance as a pre-requisite for track and CW design or does it relate to real time train kinetic energy control ? Found nonpersuasive

Item 5.1.2. : section Coupling : We are not comfortable with the sentence : "entire manoeuvre is conducted under the protection of ATP". As a mater of fact, during train rescue coupling process, such movement requires to disable the train kinetic energy control since the rescuing train has to couple with the failed train.Found nonpersuasive

Item 5.1.9 : We are not comfortable with the word "unlock" as we belive it can be resonably acceptable to continue the train movement to the next station stop with unlocked door providing that door opening is prevented using specific device (eg : door leaves motor activation to keep the door closed the door). We would be more comfortable if the word “Open” was put in place of the word “unlock”. Please consider “UITP” principles for door unlocking in case of emergency. Previously considered, no new information rejected

Item 5.2.3. Please consider to discuss the synchronisation of train door and PSD doors inhibition in case of any failed door on the train or on the station. No alternative wording provided. Invalid comment Howe, Victor No alternative wording. InvalidSystem Operations Display should have the means to be recorded.This recording will help with reconstruction down time events. Martin, Charles Accepted editorial1) Chapter 5/Title - Delete "CHAPTER 5" and title as "5 Automatic Train Control (ATC)". Note, This format change from the previous version was made to all other chapters except this one. Is it our intent to drop the CHAPTER designations?

2) Chapter 5/Paragraph 2 - Change "IEEE P1474.1" to "IEEE 1474.1-2004" as per the confirmed/official designation of the to be published standard. Tuten, James Non persuasive5.1.2 In this section the term "worst case" is used to describe a load. In this instance "worst case"

needs to be better defined, or the original "maximum crush" should be retained.

NegativeWarner, Ray Withdrawn by Mr. Warner at meeting WPara 5.1.2 Replace "worst-case" with Crush or "maximum design". "Worst case" load is rather vague and does not generally have an industry accepted definition.


Howe, Victor Non persuasiveSection on Guideway survellance should added.The guideway monitoring system shall be capable of monitoring and controlling pan, tilt and zoom type cameras. Martin, Charles Comments accepted, editorial1) Section 6.1.3 - Should "UL 813 - 1993 be listed in Section 1.4?

2) Section 6.1.6/Items a, b and c (three places) - Change "NFPA 72, 2002" to "NFPA 72-2002" so as to be consistent with other standards designations.

3) Section 6.1.6/Items b and d - Should the DAQ 3/TSB88 referance be added to Section 1.4? Shumack, Michael Section 6.1.4 Operations and Maintennace (O&M) Personnel Communications. Currently reads "The APM System shall include an internal telephone/intercom system connecting Central Control, all maintenance and storage areas, all administrative offices, and selected equipment rooms." Change to: "The APM System shall include an internal telephone/intercom system connecting Central Control, all adminstrative offices and maintenace areas, and selected storage and equipment rooms."RE: The intent of this paragraph is not to provide phone or intercom to all storage rooms - rather to those areas where personnel are typically located. Accepted. Editorial

6.3.2 Stations. Comment found nonpersuasiveCurrently reads: "Each station platform shall be provided with automatic audiable and visual warnings that signal the arrival and departure of trains."Change to: "Each station paltform shall be provided with automatic audiable and visual warnings that signal the arrival and departure of trains except for shuttle systems where the platform design allows passengers to view the guideway/APM vehicle as it enters/exits the station and where the guidway is separated from the platform with automatic doors."RE: In sistuations where passngers can view the APM train on the guideway, knows the direction from which it will enter/exit the station, and are protected from accidental contact with the train (by automatic doors), there is no cost benefit to installing automatic audiable and visual warning devices.

Negative

Warner, Ray Accepted. Will require reballotPara 6.1.6 Suggest deleting the avoidance of "synthesized" speech. Reason...future developments could easily make synthesized speech more desirable than human speech.


Dupre, Didier Invalid comments. No wording provided Posed as questionsAnx A.1.2.9. : Please consider to introduce this section as a general statement. From safety personnel perspective, it is difficult to organise such programme which is usually carried out by training team. Such activity is difficult to organise in relation to the safety process.

Anx A.2.2. : We are not comfortable with items b and g. These items relate to failures which suggest that we try to perform an FMECA part of the PHA. As a principle, PHA is by nature inductive, from the danger to the cause. So the starting point should not be the failure. FMECA is usually addressed in SHA and SSHA.Item d : Please clarify this sentence that we do not understand.

Anx A.3 : Please explain why the SSHA is addressed before the SHA in annexe A. Is there a mater of sequence ? If yes, please explain why.

Anx A.5 : Please clarify "operationnal and support procedure". If the standard intends to perform the OSHA on the basis of the operator procedure, if will fail the purpose of item of § 5.2. item b. Operation procedure are usually available at the end of the project studies, when the design is already firmed up. We suggest to base the OSHA analysys on preliminary operating principles studies and return on experience.

Additionnal general question relating to safety process:Is it really necessary to describe the safety process to be applied in this standard as there are already existing dedicated standards for this purpose ? Johnson, James Mike InvalidThis Annex appears to more approriately address the activites associated with a Safety Certification Program Plan(SCPP)rather than the System Safety Program Plan (SSPP). The SCPP identifies and describes the activities during the design and construction of the system to establish a certifiable level of safety prior to start-up of passenger service operations. Suggest that the provisions of a SCPP be included in this Annex rather than those of the SSPP, since the SSPP normally becomes effective after system start-up. Schrader, ObeSection A.1.2.3 – Para. “c”, first word should be “Identify” not “Identity” accepted editorialSection A.2.2 – Para. “d”, 4th line “effects of” not “effects if” accepted ediotiralSection A2.2 – Last sentence – does not make sense or is not clear as written invalidSection A.5.2 – Last sentence should say after “changes,” “including software design changes which affect System Safety.” Non persuasive

Vom Hovel, Rudiger accepted editorialThe Annex should be listed in the Contens

NegativeHartkorn, Albert Mr Hartkorn withdrew his negative comment at the meeting provided that an editorial addition to the annex be made to make it clear that equivalent means are acceptable.This Annex should not be 'Mandatory'. There are numerous techniques for conducting safety analysis. (Refer to Comments, Annex B.) Section A.1 is not a "System Safety Program Plan" (SSPP); it has more of the features of a Safety Certification Program Plan (SCPP). An SSPP seldom involves design/engineering contractor activies which are Certification activities. The SSPP generally is developed and implemented for an operating system and involves only programmatic milestones. The SCPP provides for most activities identified that involve engineering and design (and construction). Refer to comments for Annex B and the "Handbook for Transit Safety and Security Certification" (DOT-FTA-MA-90-5006-02-01) and the "System Safety Analysis Handbook" (System Safety Society) containing over 100 safety analysis techniques. Smith, Lawrence Accepted editorial. Larry, Chuck Elms and Jim Hoelscher to work out the editorial changessect A.1.2.1 (c) Delete the word "contractually" as it limits a broader scope. sect A.1.2.2 (b),(c),(d),(e) The references to "contractor", "subcontractors", are too limiting and exclude a wider scope which should include the owner/operator. Many of the functions of the SSPP should be carried on by the owner for the life of the system after the "contractors" are no longer involved. A word change or definition of the "responsible party" will meet the broader intent.


Hartkorn, AlbertIdentify the correct title for the 'APTA Guidelines for System Programs', which should read, "Manual for the Development of Rail Transit System Safety Program Plans". Add the following two publications to the Bibliography: accepted editorial

"Handbook for Transit Safety and Security Certification" (DOT-FTA-MA-90-5006-02-01) and

"System Safety Analysis Handbook" (System Safety Society) Accepted editorial

These additional documents will assist the designer/engineer to apply and conduct safety programs and analysis appropriate to the job. Howe, Victor InvalidA reference to some standard for updating software and documentation changes. Johnson, James Mike accepted editorialThe following document should be included for guidance in the Safety and Security Certification process:

"Handbook for Transit Safety and Security Certification"DOT-FTA-MA-90-5006-02-01DOT-VNTSC-FTA-02-12

This document identifies the key activities and resources necessary to develop and implement a certification program for safety and security, and provides the tools and sample forms to promote implmentation of the safety and security certification process. Vom Hovel, Rudiger accepted editorialthe revisions of the following standards in Annex B have to be updated:

EN 50126, September 1999

EN 50128, March 2001

EN 50129, February 2003

The Annex should be listed in the ContensGeneral

Schrader, Obe accepted editorialThe T of C pagination is off quite a bit and there are a few paragraph position errors.

Attachment B : Chapter 14- Final Version for Balloting

VERIFICATION of asce apm standards, parts 1, 2 and 3

Included in this chapter are the specifications of the minimum standards by which an APM system application shall be verified to meet the ASCE APM Standards, Parts 1, 2 and 3.

Verification that an APM system application meets ASCE APM Standards may be carried out separately or integrated with acceptance and demonstration activities.

Applicability of Prior Verification

Where a feature of the APM system application is site-specific it shall be verified to meet applicable requirements for that application and shall not be verified by any previous similar verification.

Where a feature of the APM system application is not site-specific, previous verification of the feature may be used, provided that it is updated as needed to account for:

Pertinent changes in environmental or operating conditions which affect the feature;

Pertinent engineering changes in the feature design, materials, manufacturing processes and/or interfaces;

Experience with the same feature from a prior application; and

Current verification requirements and conditions as specified in these Standards.

Methods of Verification

Compliance with ASCE APM Standards shall be verified by: (1) design review (2) analysis, (3) qualification test, (4) acceptance test (5) inspection, (6) demonstration, and (7) previous experience, or combinations thereof.

System Verification Plan

Compliance of an APM system application with the ASCE APM Standards shall be verified in accordance with a System Verification Plan. The following defines the minimum requirements for the System Verification Plan.

1. The Plan shall set forth the specific verification activities, their sequence and dependencies. Verification activities shall be grouped into categories. Verification activities shall be conducted by category with no activity being performed unless all of the activities in the prerequisite categories have been successfully completed and the results documented. Any modification that invalidates a previous verification activity shall be cause for re-verification. Activities that are closely related may be conducted together, but documentation must be kept separated.

2. All documentation required by the Standard shall be verified for compliance.

3.The logical sequence for verification is as follows:

a. Reviews of Designs and Analyses.

b. Manufacturer (or contractor, or entity building the system) Verification

c. Major Subsystem and Integrated System Verification

4. On-site Major Subsystem and Integrated System Verification shall be conducted in accordance with the sequence illustrated below:

5. Each verification activity shall be documented and include pass/fail criteria. Verification tests procedures shall include the following:

a. TITLE: Title of inspection or test.

b. REFERENCE SECTION OF STANDARD: The section number(s) and title(s) of the specific ASCE APM Standards that is(are) addressed by the inspection or test.

c. PREREQUISITE ACTIVITIES: The verification activity categories that must be successfully completed prior to conducting the inspection or test.

d. OBJECTIVES: The specific requirement(s) to be verified.

e. SAMPLE SIZE: The number of units (e.g., vehicles) required to be used in the inspection or test or the specific area involved (e.g., guideway section).

f. ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS: Any specific environmental conditions required in order for the inspection or test to demonstrate conformance with the referenced standard requirement(s).

g. EQUIPMENT/FACILITY REQUIREMENTS: Any test equipment or special facility needs.

h. PERSONNEL/SKILL REQUIREMENTS: The personnel and skills required.

i. DATA TO BE RECORDED: The specific data that is necessary to show compliance and the means by which it is to be obtained. The specific method of documentation shall be identified.

j. PASS/FAIL CRITERIA: The specific limits within which the data identified in “i” must fall in order for the verification activity to be acceptable.

k. PROCEDURES: The detailed, step-by-step, description of the inspection or test.

l. COMMENTS: Narrative description of any occurrences or events that may have an impact on personnel safety, equipment integrity or the validity of the data.

m. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the inspection(s) or test including documentation.

Minimum Verification Requirements

Table 14.1, as found at the end of this Section 14.0, references each of the requirements to be verified according to section/subsection number. For each referenced standard the verification requirements cite “what” specifically is to be verified and “how” it is to be verified..

Items identified in the Hazard Analyses affecting safety shall be verified by an individual who is qualified in the safety of APM systems in accordance with Chapter 16 of the Standard.

Where specific means of verification are specified in specific sections of the ASCE APM Standards, such requirements shall be verified as specified.

TABLE 14.1: MINIMUM VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTSCODES:DR: Design Review. Compliance with the standard is determined by means of the design review activity.A: Analysis. A specific analysis must be submitted to demonstrate compliance with the standard.QT, Qualification Test. A test must be conducted to confirm that the design meets the standard. Alternatively, documentation from a prior test of the same item may be submitted.AT: Acceptance Test: A test must be conducted to assure that the installed or as/built system meets the standard.AT1: Acceptance Test conducted on only one item of the subject equipment within the total population of such equipment.ATall: Acceptance test conducted on the total population of such equipment within the SystemI: Inspection. Inspection of the installed item for compliance with the standard.D, Demonstration: Demonstration by actual operation that the installed system performs per the standard.E: Previous Experience

Section Specific Requirement Verification Type2 Operating Environment Verify system designed per Chapter 2 DR

2.1.4 Lightning Lightning protection I

2.1.5 Existing Atmospheric Pollution

Dust and dirt QT, E

2.1.8Electromagnetic Background EMI susceptibility D

2.2.1Exterior Airborne Noise Exterior noise level AT1

2.2.2Structure-Borne Noise/Vibration

Noise/vibration level D

2.2.3Electromagnetic Radiation EMI emissions D

3Safety Requirements As specified A, DR

3.4Verification and Validation ATC system MTBHE A, DR

4System Dependability Service availability D

5Automatic Train Control (ATC)

Verify ATC designed per Chapter 5 DR


Section Specific Requirement Verification Type5.1.1Presence Detection5.1.2Separation Assurance5.1.3Unintentional-Motion Detection5.1.4Overspeed Protection5.1.5Overtravel Protection5.1.6Parted Consist Protection5.1.7Lost Signal Protection5.1.8Zero Speed Detection5.1.9Unscheduled Door Opening Protection5.1.10Door Control Protection Interlocks5.1.11Departure Interlocks5.1.12Direction Reversal Interlocks5.1.13Propulsion and Braking Interlocks5.1.14Guideway Switch Interlocks

Operation confirmed by test ATall


Section Specific Requirement Verification Type5.2.2Programmed Station Stop5.2.3Door and Dwell Time Control

Operation confirmed by test ATall

5.3.1Constraints on ATS5.3.2Status and Performance Monitoring5.3.3Performance Control and Override

Functions confirmed by demonstration D

6.1Audio Communication Confirm meets NFPA 130 DR, I

6.1.1Station Public Address

Live messages override recorded messages.Announcements delivered simultaneously.

D

6.1.2Emergency Station and Wayside Communications

Heavy duty, tamper- and weather resistant enclosure DR, I

6.1.2Emergency Station and Wayside Communications

Automatic activation.Identification of ECD at Central Control.ECD user information.

D

6.1.3Train Voice Communications and Public Address

Two-way voice communication activation and display.Train PA operating modes.Live messages override recorded messages.

D


Section Specific Requirement Verification Type6.1.3Train Voice Communications and Public Address

Speaker fire resistance. DR, I

6.1.4Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Personnel Communications

Heavy duty, tamper- and weather-resistant enclosure.Sufficient quantity of radios.

DR, I

6.1.5Recording of Audio Transmissions

Recording capacity. D

6.1.6Intelligibility of Audio Communications

Coverage and clarity of communication AT1

6.2.1CCTV Central Control Equipment

Surveillance coverage and monitors layout I

6.2.2CCTV Passenger Station Equipment

Camera sensitivity and tamper-proof design and locations DR, I

6.2.3Recording of Video Transmissions

Recording capacity.Identification of camera, time and date. D

6.3.1Passenger Information - Vehicle

Automatic audio and visual station information D

6.3.2Passenger Information - Stations

Automatic audio and visual warnings and information. D

7.1Vehicle Capacity and Load Passenger load density DR


Section Specific Requirement Verification Type7.2Vehicle Dynamic Envelope Dynamic envelope DR, QT

7.3Clearance in Stations Vertical and horizontal gaps ATall

7.4Vehicle Structural Design Verify vehicle structural design per 7.4 A, DR

7.4.4.1.2Worst-Case Loads

Seat loadingWheelchair loadingStanchion horizontal loadDoor load

QT

7.4.4.2Jacking and Lifting Frame rigidity QT

7.4.4.6Deformation Frame rigidity D

7.5.1Mechanical Design7.5.2Electrical/Control

Coupling operation and lock D

7.5.3Coupler Interfaces

Electrical and pneumatic coupling connection.Grounding.

D

7.6Suspension and Guidance Tire or levitation failure DR

7.7.1Heating and Air Conditioning

Heating/cooling capacity and temperature control QT

7.7.2Ventilation Fresh air flow QT

7.7.3.1.1Maximum Sustained Acceleration

Acceleration limits QT


Section Specific Requirement Verification Type7.7.3.1.2Maximum Jerk Rate Jerk limits QT

7.7.3.2Human Response Testing Ride quality QT

7.7.4Noise Levels Interior Noise QT

7.7.6.1Priority Seating Signs Signage requirements I

7.7.6.2Interior Circulation, Handrails, and Stanchions

Passenger accommodation DR, I

7.7.6.3Floor Surfaces Slip resistance DR, I

7.7.6.4Materials and Fasteners Vandal resistance DR, I

7.8Doors, Access, and Egress

Dimensions.Locking.Obstruction detection/operation.Closing force.Manual Operation.Emergency evacuation

ATall, D

7.9Windows Glazing DR

7.10Fire Protection and Flammability

Chapter 8, NFPA 130, 2003 DR

7.10.1Material Selection Chapter 8, NFPA 130, 2003 DR

7.10.2Thermal Protection Thermal protection QT


Section Specific Requirement Verification Type7.10.3Fire Extinguishers Location and type I

7.10.4 Smoke Detectors Activation/annunciation ATall

7.11.1Interior Lighting Design and illumination DR, D

7.11.2Emergency Lighting Illumination and duration QT

7.11.3Directional Identification and Headlights

Directional identification.Illumination. ATall

7.12.2.1Low Voltage Power Ventilated, isolated enclosure I

7.12.2.2Protection Devices Circuit breakers and fuses DR, D

7.12.2.3Emergency Power Power level and duration QT

7.12.3Wiring Size and marking DR, I

7.12.4Power Collectors

Electrical capacity.Shop power. DR, D

7.12.5Grounding

Carbody grounding.Equipment grounds DR, ATall

8.1PBS Rating Duty cycle DR

8.2.2Tension Member Propulsion Rope, rope drives and sheaves DR

8.2.3Air Flow Propulsion Protection of environment I

8.3.1Service Braking Function and duty cycle DR, ATall


Section Specific Requirement Verification Type8.3.2Emergency Braking

Function, duty cycle, fail safety, stopping distance DR, ATall

8.3.3Parking Braking Function DR, ATall

8.4.1PBS Design Requirements Special hazard analysis DR

8.4.2PBS Service Requirements

Duty cycle.Manual release.Deterioration over time

DR, QT, D

8.5Installation and Protection Protection from rotating equipment DR, I

8.6Controls and Interlocks Propulsion/brake interlocks DR, D

9.1.1Safety Blue light stations I

9.1.2Corrosion Control Galvanic protection and stray currents DR

9.1.3Electrical System Protection

Fault, overload, over voltage under voltage, ground fault and phase imbalance.Provision of harmonic filters.Surge and ground fault protection.Circuit breaker trip annunciation.

DR, ATall

9.1.4.1Traction Power Grounding Voltage under worst-case fault current. DR, A, QT

9.1.4.2Facilities and Structure Grounding

Compliance with NFPA 70 DR, I

9.1.5Redundancy

No single point failure to preclude operation. DR, D


Section Specific Requirement Verification Type9.1.6Design Life Design life DR

9.1.7Voltage Regulation Minimum worst-case voltage DR

9.1.8Power Distribution Capacity Duty cycle DR, D

9.2.2Power Factor Power factor AT1

9.2.3Harmonics Voltage distortion limits D

9.2.4System Monitoring and Alarms

Substation monitors and alarms D

9.2.5Power Regeneration Equipment

Acceptance by system and utility of regenerated power D

9.2.6Remote Monitoring and Control

Logging over power application and removal D

9.2.7Local Control Control and lockout DR, D

9.2.8Restoring Power Power restoration D

9.2.9Substation Facilities

Compliance with NFPA 70.Provision of fire protection.Compliance with NFPA 130

DR, I

9.3.1Guideway Mounted Power Distribution

Electrical insulation.Expansion joints.Protective covers.Power rail sizing and mounting.

DR, I


Section Specific Requirement Verification Type9.3.2Power Zones Zone isolation and bridging DR, D

9.3.3Splice Joint Requirements Power rail splices DR

9.3.4Expansion Joints/Sections

Thermal expansion.Short circuit electromechanical loads.Current carrying capacity.

DR

9.3.5Power Rail Transitions

Engagement/disengagement of collectors with power rail D

9.3.6Insulators

Insulation properties, including flammability.Protection from inadvertent contact by persons.

DR, E, QT

9.3.8Power Rail To Earth Resistance

Electrical resistance to ground QT

9.3.9Power and Ground Rail Heating

Heating for deicing DR, QT

9.4Passenger Station Electrical Equipment


9.5Uninterruptible Power Supply Electrical capacity and duration DR, QT

10.1.2Detectable Warning Strip Tactile platform edge strip DR, I

10.2.1Intrusion Prevention System10.2.2

Door requirements. QTDoor structural load. QTGlass safety. QT


Section Specific Requirement Verification Type

Intrusion Control System

Door locking, closing forces, closing energy, obstruction detection.Emergency egress and manual operation.Door closing audio/visual warning signals.Space between platform doors and vehicle doors.Vehicle/platform door coordination.

DR, ATall

10.2.3Intrusion Detection System

Size of object.Initiation of braking.Stopping of moving apparatus on guideway.Alarm to central control.Restoration of service.

DR, D, ATall

10.3Evacuation Of Misaligned Trains

Design features D

10.4Emergency Lighting and Ventilation

Performance with applicable codes DR, I

10.5.1Fire Detection

Provision of smoke alarms and annunciation at central control D

10.5.2Fire Containment Provision of fire barriers DR, I

10.5.3Fire Suppression Compliance with codes DR, I

11.2Intrusion Protection and Detection

Fencing of right of way.Intrusion alarms. DR, I, D


Section Specific Requirement Verification Type11.3Emergency Evacuation and Access

Voice communication.Protection after manual door opening.Labeling and locking of station and guideway doors.

DR, D

11.3.1Tunnel Guideway11.3.2Surface Guideway11.3.3Elevated Guideway


11.3.3Elevated Guideway Definition of other “suitable means” DR, AT1

11.4Fire Protection Compliance with NFPA 130 DR, I

11.5Signage Requirements for life safety signage I


Compliance with NFPA 130 DR


Egress route illumination level ATall

11.7Emergency Power Supply Compliance with NFPA 130 DR, I

11.8Guideway Alignment Vehicle floor inclination when stopped DR, AT1

11.8.1Clearances Vehicle/fixed facilities clearances ATall

11.8.1Clearances Contact with platform edge DR, D


Section Specific Requirement Verification Type11.8.3Drainage Drainage routes and slopes DR, I

11.9.1Loads and Forces11.9.2Load Combinations11.9.3Design and Analysis

Guideway design loads and forces DR, A

Attachment C : Part 2 Structural Issues

Topic Category ASCE-21-98N 12663

Category P-IV

Draft

ASME RT-1

category 2 LRV

Suggested change to

ASCE-21-98

Decision Miami Feb 05

Scope

Automated People Movers : "a guided transit mode with fully automated

operation , featuring vehicles that operate on guideways with exclusive right-of-

way"

"light duty metro & heavy duty tramway

vehicles"

"newly constructed light rail transit

vehicles for passenger service in North America",

but excluding APM , freight, high

speed rail…

The comment is to be adressed at

the commitee chair level.

complete vehicle carbody only carbody only

Distinction between carbody & bogie in

§7.4.4.1.2 ; definitions of

"carbody" & "bogie" ?

Capacity definition and

payload

References §7.1 §2.4.2

OK

Tare weight AW0 empty m1 (carbody) + 2*m3 (bogies) AW0 empty

Weight scale

not defined not definedAW1 = AW0 + crew

+ fully seated passenger load

AW1 design load not defined AW2 system load = AW1 + 2p/m2

AW2 max operating load / weighting

systemnot defined AW3 crush load =

AW1 + 4p/m2

AW3 crush load 5120 N/m2 + seated

passengers

m1 (carbody) + 2*m3 (bogies) + m2

( 5 to 10 passengers/m2)

AW4 structural load = AW1 + 6 p/m2

Passenger weight

passenger load 712N (72,6 kg)

passenger load 687 N (70kg)

passenger load 75 kg

Passenger load to be unified ? No change

Luggage not definedluggage rack load 300 kg/m2 (2943

N/m2)not defined

§7.1: to AW1, AW2 and AW3: + a

luggage load of 2943 N/m2.

If luggage racks are provided, a luggage

load of 300 kg/m2 (2943

N/m2) shall be

considered for AW2

and AW3,

Operating load (fatigue)

References §7.4 mass AW1 §4.6 load spectrum §4, §4.3.2

Design life 20 years 1E7 cycles 1E7 cycles

§7.4.3 Unless otherwise

specified, it is admitted for fatigue calculations that 1 cycle corresponds

to 1 station-to-station run

No change

longitudinal load

acceleration = max [service

traction/braking ; 0,1 g]

+/- 0,2 g (equipment attachments only) +/- 0,2 g

§7.4.4.1.1 ( 3 ) … by normal acceleration

or braking operation plus 0,1

times AW1

No change

transversal load

acceleration = centrifugal + 0,1*g +/- 0,15 g 0,15 g to 0,25 g

OK

vertical load acceleration = (1+/- 0,2) g (1 +/- 0,15) g (1 +/- 0,2) g

equipment attachments same as above ? X 0.2g ; Y 0.15g ; Z

1+0.15g Same as above

Allowable stress

75% of allowable fatigue stress for an acceptable industry

standard

100% of fatigue stress from database,

associated with : 97,5% probability of survival ; 2E6 cycles

for steel and 1E7 cycles for

aluminium.

not defined

§7.4.4.1.1 …0.75 of the material

allowable fatigue stress range from

an accepted industry standard

considering a 97,5% lifetime

survival probability for the structural design life per section 7.4.3.

Check with Bombardier Engineers

Exceptional load References §7.4 §4

longitudinal load

dragging of brakes (or failure) at AW2 +

wind

see crashworthiness section

not defined OK

transversal load

AW2*(centrifugal acceleration from

overspeed in curve + 0,1*g) + max

transversal wind force

or AW3 static in curve (canted) + max transversal

wind force

not defined not defined

vertical load 1,2 * g * AW2 or static AW3 1,2 * g * (m1 + m2) AW4

accidental not defined not defined rest on the roof in rollover condition

vehicle jacking, torsion

including : offset of jacks AW0

including : offset of jacks

1,1 * g *(m1 + 2m3)not defined

§7.4.4.2 : …, including a load factor of 1,15.

§7.4.4.2 : …,

including a load factor

of 1,15.

body / bogie attachments not defined not defined X or Y : 400 kN ; Z :

bogie mass * 2 g

equipment attachments not defined X 3g ; Y 1g ; Z

(1+0,5)g to (1+2)g X 5g ; Y 2g ; Z 3g

§7.4.4.10 Each mounting

equipment and their attachment shall resist to the

following acceleration: 3g longitudinal, 1g lateral and 3g

vertical.

Need to define

Carbody and non car body

Allowable stress 1/1,5*Re 1/1,15*Re AND

1/1,5*Rm

65% Re for vertical load ; Re (=no

permanent deformation) for longitudinal load

§7.4.4.1.2 …including a load

factor of 1.15 to the elastic limit (Re) and 1.5 to the

rupture limit (Rm) for carbody and 1.5 to the elastic limit

for the bogie.

Safety Factor

subject to further review

Miscellanous loading

roof surfacedistributed 1440N/m2

concentrated 1110 N / 150*100 mm

not defined 1330 N / 380*330 mm

OK

floor surface

distributed AW3 ;concentrated

712N/13mm circlenot defined not defined

wheel effects of wheel- not defined not defined §7.4.4.1.2 (4) … §7.4.4.1.2

scrubbing, wheel-cornering

including tire scrubbing

(cornering) and wheel-locking.

(4) … including

tire scrubbing (cornering) and wheel-

locking.

doors§ 7.4.4.1.2 980 N on 10 cm x 10 cm surface of vehicle

doors

(specific NF standards exist) not defined

§ 7.4.4.1.2 consistency with

platform door requirements (1110

N on 10 cm x 10 cm surface). Add:

impact kinetic energy of 10J.

Add KE Requirement But do

not change load

seats shall support 2160 N vertical

(specific NF standards exist) not defined OK

Cra

shw

orth

ines

s

force and energy

not defined 400 kN at coupler level

Max (AW4*2G ; 890 kN)

not defined not defined1) bumper for

automobile collision 10 kJ

collision speed

train/train, 5 km/h, AW2 not defined

1) bumper for train/train impact 8

km/h

§7.4.4.9.1 The collision at any

speed up to 8 km/h (5 mph) of either… shall withstand a

maximum deceleration rate of

1.2 g with only cosmetic damage to the train. This requirement shall

be met for …

Subject ot further

Bombardier Review


2) coupler & anticlimber

(specified coupling speed 30 km/h)

not defined not defined 3) controled crush zone - train/train

collision speed 40 km/h

train/buffer, maxi manual speed

without ATP, AW2, <1,2g


§7.4.4.9.2 In the cases of a collision

(manual control) with the overtravel protection device, the integrity of the

passenger compartment shall

be kept.

§7.4.4.9.2 In the

cases of a collision (manual control) with the

overtravel protection device, the integrity of

the passenger compartment shall be

kept. (additional requirment)

other collision

scenarios

not defined not defined 178 kN at side sill

not defined not definedimpact at 40 km/h by a 4500 lb pick-

up truck


design shall include : end sill,

anticlimber, collision posts, corner posts,

structural shelf

Allowable stress

cosmetic damage, no derailment not defined

passenger compartment

integrity

See changes above concerning

§7.4.4.9.1 and §7.4.4.9.2

asce t&di - apm) standardsapmstandards.org/linked documents/february2005_miami.doc · web...

Documents