1. A Total Ship-Crew Model to Achieve Human Systems Integration
I/ITSEC
December 7, 2004
Dr. Loretta DiDonato
CDR Joseph B. Famme USN (ret.)
LCDR Alan Nordholm USN
Senior Chief Alan Lemon

2. Abstract
Requirements for new ships in an era of increasing threats, escalating personnel costs and fiscal constraints have escalated the priority of Human Systems Integration (HSI). The challenge is to create and use metrics for ship and human engineered systems that optimize human performance within ships that are designed with complex automated propulsion, auxiliary and weapon systems. Total Ship Systems Engineering (TSSE) includes techniques for manning analysis to characterize and validate the crew duty requirements in an associated sailor profile data base that describes the composite knowledge-task-time demand for each crew position across all mission profiles in the context of advanced automation technologies and survivable hull forms. A technology considered but not currently implemented in the manning analysis process is a Total Ship-Crew Model (TS-CM) that adds the attribute of dynamic time to the analysis of coupled ship systems-crew performance. This paper will address the use of a TS-CM analysis tool to validate ship systems processes and reduced crew manning while capturing the ship-crew model for future use in support of HSI objectives over the ship lifecycle.
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

3. Human Systems Integration
Human Engineering
Manpower
Personnel
Training
Safety & Health
Maintainability
Habitability
Personnel Survivability
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

4. Human Performance Analysis Ship Performance Analysis
Three Domains I
Human Performance Analysis II
Ship Performance Analysis
III
Total Ship-Crew Model
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

5. Two Approaches to HSI Manning Analysis
Crew Size
CG / DDG
Baseline
CG SmartShip
DDG SmartShip?
FF / FFG
SA’AR-5 /
LCS
DDX
Objective
Design Iterations
Ref: J. Famme, ASNE Intelligent Ship Symposium, 1994
Also see J. Famme INNC 1997, South Hampton, UK
@ TAB Technical Papers
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

6. DoD Architecture Framework SME Interviews
Domain I Human Performance Analysis Creating the Crew Performance Model
Sailor System
Navy Skills Data Base
MANPRINT
DoD Architecture Framework
SME Interviews
DDG-51 Class Reduced Manning Studies
Advanced Human Modeling Initiatives
Human Attribute Modeling
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

7. Sailor System
The DD(X) Design Agent “Sailor System Specification” (S3) ensure systems designed to implement the capabilities of the sailors who will ultimately maintain and operate the ship
Interoperability of all ship systems integration and engineering design elements
Verify HSI concepts and validate operability through human performance modeling and testing
Sailor System Specification provides traceability among segment, element, component, and Computer Software Configuration Item (CSCI)
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

8. Navy Skills Data Base
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program began with the Navy leasing several ships for trials and crew experience
Outcome of trials is realization of the complex cross-tasks/skills requirements
Navy rate structure by itself has been found to be too limited
Reflected in current CSOSS, EOSS and EOCC Procedures
Navy Collecting Sailor “Skills” Data Base for basis of assignment
See SkillsNet website for information about the Five-vector plan for advancement (Navy Times, 2003).
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

9. MANPRINT
MANPRINT is concerned with the identification and integration of all relevant information in each of eight human performance domains (slide 3)
Manpower Personnel Integration (MANPRINT) as applied through the systems engineering process.
Goal: System design process to meet acquisition system performance goals
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

10. Department of Defense Architecture Framework
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition (ASN-RDA) Chief Engineer’s Office has developed human-centered architecture
Total systems engineering approach
As one of the costliest system elements over the ship life cycle, the role of the warfighter directly impacts system cost-effectiveness.
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

11. Subject Matter Expert (SME) Interviews
Tool for HSI driven ship manning analysis is the interview of SME’s (crew members) of current ships concerning their performed tasks and skills including an estimate of the time required to perform each task.
DDG51 Crew Interviews used, in part, for DDX
Comments
DDG51: a sailor represents ~1/325th of the crew tasks with little automation support. For the DD(X) a sailor represents ~1/114th
DDG = low automation
DDX = approaches “autonomic” automation
Does not address human factors that are not necessarily intuitive such as situational factors of perception, comprehension, and projection
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

12. DDG-51 Class Reduced Manning Studies
SME interview technique discussed above, with added sophistication and comprehensive analysis
DDG51 class manning reduction
Revealed that the process to evaluate Return on Investment (ROI) and the TOC impact for manning reduction initiatives is difficult.
Case of USS COLE, it was not sheer numbers that saved the ship, but the actions of a handful of very experienced people
Comments
“Navy ships need to be prototyped now to ensure preparedness for the introduction of a new generation of warfighting ships”
DDG51: a real-time survivability model has never been created
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

13. Advanced Human Modeling Initiatives
Office of Naval Research (ONR) cognitive science research is a scientific revolution in understanding the human operator
Research is yielding computational theories of human cognition and perceptual/motor activity, provides precise quantitative predictions variables such as times required to learn and complete tasks
TS-CM paper does not include the modeling potential of emerging ONR human attributes pending access to more complete research results
Human Attribute Modeling as nodes in an “autonomic” control systems
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

14. Ship Performance Modeling Enabling Technology
Domain II Ship Performance Analysis Creating the Ship Performance Model
Ship Performance Modeling
Enabling Technology
CAD
PBD
CAD – PBD Integration
Element of Dynamic Time
Creating the Ship Performance Model
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

15. Ship Performance Modeling Enabling Technology: Electronic Data Integration
Computer Aided Design (CAD)
Electronic
Data
Integration
Dynamic Time
Physics Based Design (PBD)
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

16. Ship Firemain Process Detail A user may drill into any configured ship
process system to the smallest
level of detail for process engineering
Design and Training.
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

17. Ship Electric Plant Process Detail
and then, navigate within the ancillary
process connections of the
multi-discipline SIMSMART™
environment.
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

18. Ship Compartments / Tanks
Ballast & Drain
Process Details
Ship compartments may be modeled for flooding and progressive flooding, fire and
smoke spread
The SIMSMART™ flooding model may be
linked to dynamic ship stability calculations
for draft, GM, etc...
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

19. The TS-CM Ship Performance Model
Total Ship Model
The TS-CM Ship Performance Model
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

20. Sources of Crew Skill based Task Models Event Time Scenarios
Domain III Ship-Crew Performance Model Creating the Ship-Crew Performance Model
Prototyping Benefits
TS-CM Objective
Building the TS-CM
Elements of the TS-CM
Sources of Crew Skill based Task Models
Event Time
Scenarios
Collecting & Evaluating Data
Optimizing / Trade-off Analysis
Expected Results
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

21. Crew Tasks from EOCC Procedures
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

22. Crew Tasks Inserted into the TS-CM
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

23. Merging Ship & Crew Task Models into the Scenario
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

24. TS-CM: Executing the Scenario
PMS430 – BFTT - Total Ship Training & Operational Decision Aids Architecture
TS-CM: Executing the Scenario
BOPC
Scenario Generation
& Control
Debrief
Products
Performance
Monitoring,
Training &
Assessment
DATA COLLECTION LAN
STOW LAN
USN & Coalition Combat Systems Training
TPTS
Platform Simulation
IT21 SWAN & 2-Way Wireless LAN
IT21 LAN / SWAN
Two-way
Central Control Station (CCS), Damage Control Central (DCC),
Machinery Spaces, Repair Stations 2, 3, 5, 8, …
PERCIEVED TRUTH
MCS
GROUND TRUTH
Wearable Computers
Trainer
DCAMS
This slide shows the PMS430 BFTT total ship training system architecture
BOPC is the BFTT Operational Problem Console. BOPC is used to select the CS and/or TPTS training scenarios, control the pace of training and collect the trainee / system data for the performance monitoring sub-system / debriefing products.
The MCS and combat systems operators are at their consoles. The DCAMS provided wearable computers are used by the “non-console” equipped crew members for training in engineering and damage control IAW EOSS (EOP-EOCC) and CSOSS. The wearable displays provide EOSS-CSOSS check lists, deck layouts for finding resources and plotting damage and the status of repairs. Every trainee key stroke is time tagged.
The Trainers / Observers also have wearable computers. They are provided “ground truth”, the actual status of the systems (flows, GPM, temp., pressure, amps,..) and for damage, the size of the “hole”, depth of the water, temp. of the fire, and smoke visibility. The Trainers disclose information to the trainees based on the correctness of their investigation and use of EOSS/CSOSS. Trainers control the simulation. As the crew uses correct procedures the Trainers can “restore” the system, make the “hole” smaller, extinguish the fire, … by using their display pointer. Trainer actions are transmitted to and change the simulation accordingly.
Trainee
Training Flags
Trainer
Ground Truth
Trainee
Perceived Truth
Perceived Truth
Ship Interior Communications
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

25. TPTS Instructor Station (1)
The “Windows” framed in Blue are the windows seen by the TPTS Instructors to initiate the scenario.
Here the BOPC / TPTS Instructor Sizes and Executes the “Damage” according to the BOPC scenario time line.
The Instructor can see the status of the auxiliary systems that support the combat systems (shown in the windows), such as cooling water, air, electricity. These values are computed in the SIMSMART™ physics models running in background. Neither the instructors or trainees actually see or need to see the SIMSMART™ models.
Also visible is the Navy Postgraduate School (NPS) stability curves for this class of ship. As the ship floods from damage, SIMSMART calculates the weight and sends the data to the NPS Excel spreadsheet where the moment is converted into ship draft forward and aft.
The Instructor can control the size the hole(s) in the hull and between compartments using sliders. The sliders are used to set the initial damage and are reset (usually smaller) as the observers give credit to the crew for taking correct dewatering actions. The SIMSMART™ physics models using NPS curves computes the forward / after draft, GM height, etc.
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

26. TPTS Operator Station (1)
CG47 ECSE Upgrade
Example of an actual CG47 Class “Smart Ship” Engineering Control System display page. (Courtesy of Litton Guidance and Control)
This shows that the SIMSMART™ model can interface to any open architecture control HMI display.
This is the MCS Master Page that is segmented into four quadrants:
Upper Left is Propulsion Control & Monitoring
Upper Right is Electric Plant Control & Monitoring
Lower Left is Damage Control and Monitoring including Ballast and Fuel
Lower Right is Auxiliary Systems Control & Monitoring
These Master Pages are the starting pointing for “drilling down” to detailed control of and feedback from subsystems
In the training mode the HMI control buttons are linked to the physics objects (pumps, motors, switches, …) in the SIMSMART™ model.
The next series of slides are snapshots from the actual TPTS demonstration that will be given using two laptop computers and two PC projectors.
Courtesy Litton Integrated Systems
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

27. Scenario & Instructor Control “Flooding”
TPTS Instructor Station (2)
Operator
The “Windows” framed in RED are the windows seen by the ship’s crew as part of the ship’s control system. This example is the progressive flooding page.
The “Windows” framed in Blue are the windows seen by the TPTS Instructors to control the level of flooding. Note the “sliders” used to control the hole size between compartments. Normally the “size” of the “holes” is based on DCAMS wearable computers input and input directly from the observers as they evaluate the student actions. Instructors can over-ride remote inputs if it improves training.
Scenario & Instructor Control “Flooding”
“fire”, “smoke” & Equipment Damage & Repair
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

28. Instructor TPTS Operator Station (3)
TPTS Operator and Instructor Station Displays
The “Windows” framed in RED are the windows seen by the ship’s crew as part of the ship’s control system. This example is the progressive flooding in main spaces, and shows the main spaces drainage system with control valves and pumps. The valves and pumps are liked to the SIMSMART™ physics model running in background in real-time. The “red” windows are perceived truth based on disclosures to the crew and feedback from the MCS as stimulated by the models.
The “Windows” framed in Blue are the windows seen by the TPTS Instructors to monitor & control the level of flooding. The “blue” windows are ground truth / computer calculated reality.
The Flooding Curves of an actual combatant ship are courtesy of the Naval Postgraduate School.
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

29. Collecting Ship-Crew Task Performance Data
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

30. Histograms: Time-based Analysis of Systems and Crew Performance
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

31. Key Technology: Natural vs. Signal Coupled Model
Histogram Analysis
Event A
Auto Response Fails
Crew Decision = R5 Response
Pressure Up / Temp Down
R5 on Scene
System Restored
R5/8 CSOSS / EOCC Actions / Restore Control
Key Technology: Natural vs. Signal Coupled Model
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

32. TS-CM: Expected Results
Systems Design
The prototype systems design should be readily adjustable for designers by observance of model dynamics. The feedback will be rapid and insightful.
Crew Manning
The prototype crew manning should be rapidly modifiable for intended customers and designers by observation of the operating models to provide rapid and insightful feedback.
Validated Model Capture
TS-CM prototype models will be electronically captured at every phase of design and as a validated design that can be used for all of the benefits of rapid prototyping and support of HSI objectives over the ship’s life cycle, such as embedded training, as described in this paper.
Today, none of these models (computations / metrics) are captured or delivered to the Navy except in a few specialized reports
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04

33. Conclusions
This paper has described the use of dynamic modeling as a new tool for manning analysis for ships now in design. The new ships must meet all Navy HSI requirements while achieving revolutionary crew reduction supported by autonomic-based control systems yet to be implemented. Existing ships can also use the TS-CM process to improve manning and automation analysis. TS-CM provides a prototyping and analysis environment to meet this requirement that balances the use of traditional human engineering performance factors such as skill based tasks analysis combined with a real-time dynamic total ship model created through the use of physics based design tools. The TS-CM environment is based on qualitative systems and crew performance in a quantitative, dynamic real-time model of ship systems and crew performance tasks. The TS-CM can be used during every phase of a ship’s design to verify that HSI compliant reduced manning levels are quantified, validated and captured for re-use over the ship’s lifecycle. Because the validated TS-CM model can be based on the system performance models that were used to verify the ship’s design, the TS-CM will be able to be reused for all of the future HSI functions of Embedded Training, Condition Assessment, Performance Monitoring, Readiness Assessment, Decision Aids, and Future Modernization.
I/ITSEC Paper /7/04