Computer-Aided Design 45 (2013) 937–949

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computer-Aided Design
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cad

A modeling approach for maintenance safety evaluation in a virtual

maintenance environment
Jie Geng a,b , Dong Zhou a,b,∗ , Chuan Lv a,b , Zili Wang b
a
State Key laboratory of Virtual Reality Technology and System, Beijing, 100191, PR China
b
School of Reliability and Systems Engineering, Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Beijing, 100191, PR China

article info abstract

Article history: This paper presents a novel virtual maintenance application for maintenance safety evaluation (MSE)
Received 21 July 2012 to provide recommendations on maintenance safety during the early stages of product design. The
Accepted 27 January 2013 proposed methodology detects the potential defects via virtual maintenance technology, and safety
evaluation could be carried out in a predictive way intuitively and systemically to decrease the possibility
Keywords: of accidents. After reviewing relevant publications, a MSE model with thorough consideration of the
Virtual maintenance
characters in the virtual maintenance environment was addressed. The model consists of evaluation
Maintenance safety evaluation
Virtual design
contributors, evaluation criteria, and evaluation methodology. A case study on APU system maintenance
was used to illustrate the performance of the evaluation model. The result showed the feasibility of virtual
maintenance in improving maintenance safety designs.
© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Bearing the aforementioned observations in mind, this paper

The innovation and development of industrial technology needs
the constant improvement of newly developed products in vari-
ous realms. Examples of such innovations in industrial technology
include numerous composite materials, high automatization and
intellectuality, multiple measurement and control equipments,
advanced Built-In Test (BIT) devices, etc. Without a doubt, most
maintenance tasks must be accomplished by man. Moreover, the
continuous renewal of products results in the difficulty in identi-
fying when and where failure occurs. Furthermore, a larger quan-
tity of maintenance work frequently draws out to a great length,
whereas the high utilization ratio reduces maintenance time. Con-
sequently, maintenance personnel always bear great psychological
and mental pressures under the lack of essential operation training
and manipulation guidance, which naturally influences the occur-
rence of accidents.
In actual maintenance safety works, integrated handbook and
standards are strongly recommended. The lack of maintenance
safety design guides causes the invalidity of accident prevention
during maintenance processes. As a result, things that need
improvement are exposed after use and maintenance.
∗ Correspondence to: Room 633, Weimin Building, Beijing University of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, 37#, Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, PR
China. Tel.: +86 010 82338334; fax: +86 010 82313763.
E-mail addresses: ddgj516@126.com (J. Geng), buaazd0926@126.com
(D. Zhou), lc@buaa.edu.cn (C. Lv), wzl@buaa.edu.cn (Z. Wang).
introduces a maintenance safety evaluation model to launch main-
tenance safety evaluation (MSE) in the virtual maintenance en-
vironment (VME). Appropriate maintainability evaluation factors
were selected according to the VME characteristics. In addition,
ascending hierarchical analysis structure for maintenance safety
evaluation was established based on the hierarchic analysis prin-
ciple. The corresponding evaluation criteria for each factor were
given by determining the grades. A methodology applied to the
hierarchic analysis structure was then adopted to quantitatively
calculate the qualitative evaluation factors. The authenticity, ac-
curacy, and integrality of the simulation processes in VM lay the
foundation for the later safety evaluation. The whole simulation
process of the virtual human was assumed according to the opera-
tional guidelines in VME to accomplish this goal. MSE was carried
out, combining the inspection for virtual prototype and analysis
tools in VME. Finally, a series of maintenance safety design defects
were exploded compared with the criteria. This process is essen-
tial in obtaining more comprehensive suggestions for both main-
tenance safety literature and maintenance operation guides to
reduce accidents.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews
correlative literature in this paper; Section 3 shows the details of
maintenance safety evaluation model architecture; Section 4 gen-
erally describes the VME and the virtual maintenance simulation
case for APU disassembly and deals with the implementation of the
evaluation model combining the case study; Section 5 concludes
the paper and presents several discussions.

0010-4485/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cad.2013.01.007
938 J. Geng et al. / Computer-Aided Design 45 (2013) 937–949
2. Literature review
Recent publications relevant to this paper were mainly con-
cerned with two research streams: virtual maintenance and main-
tenance safety evaluation. In this section, relevant literature were
summarized.
For virtual maintenance, a considerable variety of studies have
been conducted since the late 1990s. In the recent years, the pre-
dominance of virtual maintenance allowed more comprehensive
applications, such as maintenance training [1,2], product design
[3,4], process simulation, and analysis [5–8]. Consequently, virtual
maintenance can be used as a tool to simulate and analyze the
maintenance process to guide product design with virtual proto-
typing.
For maintenance safety evaluation, a great diversity of models
was adopted during the past decades, including a techno-economic
model applied to the design and maintenance optimization based
on safety analysis [9], a theoretical model used to carry out a sec-
ondary analysis of available data on maintenance accidents [10],
various probabilistic risk analysis models for system safety as-
sessment [11–15], a model that combined a failure model and a
maintenance model for analyzing the impact of imperfect main-
tenance on system safety [16], and several other models in dif-
ferent domains [17–23]. Meanwhile, different approaches and
methods were proposed for safety management, analysis, and eval-
uation. For example, a systematic approach for the management
of safety case change [24], an approach based on the effective
coupling of genetic algorithms and Monte Carlo simulation for
the multi-objective optimization of nuclear safety systems [25],
a safety evaluation tool based on a detailed analysis of the safety
awarded by different types of measures [26], an evaluation system
that used a combination of Analytic Hierarchy Process, decision
rules and Bayesian tools belonging to operational research [27],
and a decision-making method for coal mining safety evaluation
with linguistic values [28].
However, few existing models were proposed for maintenance
safety evaluation in VME. Moreover, safety evaluation needs to be
carried out in a predictive way. If prevention is fully effective only
after the error has occurred, it is too late. One must identify risks
to be evaluated and controlled before accidents happen [29,30].
In addition, operational and maintenance activities are closely
related to each other to contribute to overall safety, which in turn
contributes to production quality and profit [31]. Hence, launching
MSE in VME is harmful to the improvement of product design in
a predictive way during the early stages. Experience is extremely
vital during maintenance process [31]. However, the improvement
solution from evaluation in VME will commendably guide the
maintenance processes.
Evaluation factor and criteria are highly important for the eval-
uation of results [32,15,33]. Thus, the evaluation factor options
and criteria should be based on the problem being evaluated and
the scientific and practical relevance under the given circum-
stances [34,35]. Previous industrial accidents provided predictive
information for safety factor confirmation. These information in-
clude human factors [36–38] and mechanical risk factors [39]. Con-
sequently, both should be concerned about when confirming VME
evaluation factors.
Among the quantitative evaluation methods, eight common
evaluation methods were compared to confirm a suitable one to
the following proposed model in ascertaining evaluation index
weight. Gray evaluation method can launch a quantitative evalua-
tion for qualitative factors, but subjectively when grading [40]. The
Fuzzy comprehension evaluation method qualifies the factors with
a fuzzy relationship. The assurance of membership function is a
crucial part during application [41,42]. Analytical hierarchical pro-
cess effectively combines the quantitative and qualitative analysis
to solve complex systems with multiple criteria. Meanwhile, the
consistency check can be unfavorable when a layer contains nu-
merous factors [43–46]. The entropy weight method calculates the
integrative indicator with a large amount of information from each
element, whereas human ignorance will make it aimless [47,48].
The principle component analysis translates all the indicators into
several independent integrative indicators; thus, the quantity and
the increase or decrease of indicators will affect the final result
[49,50]. The extension assessment method focuses on matter el-
ement construction. However, the completeness of indicators and
the rationality of weights are the crux of the method [51,52]. The
synthetical index method has an uncomplicated principle and cal-
culation, but is highly dependent on weight [53,54]. The factor
analysis method creates several specific common factors based on
the principle component analysis, whereas the common factors
have little relevance with each other [55,56]. Table 1 shows the
superior and inferior among the eight methods.
3. Development of the MSE model
3.1. General framework
The proposed MSE model consists of three parts, namely, eval-
uation element, evaluation criteria, and evaluation method. Based
on existing maintainability design requirements, the evaluation
element selection should take full accountability of the feasibil-
ity of launching evaluation in VME. Therefore, the selected ele-
ments can be analyzed with relating tools in VME. A hierarchical
structure of evaluation elements is constructed after confirmation.
Evaluation criteria are the core of the whole framework; the es-
tablishment of corresponding criteria to each element greatly in-
fluences the accuracy of evaluation results. Correlative description
on maintainability design requirement of the selected elements
is the main reference during evaluation criteria formulation. The
formulated criteria will grade the evaluation element according
to appeared maintenance safety condition. The analytic hierarchy
process (AHP) calculates the weight of each index due to the hierar-
chical structure of evaluation element. In addition, the principle of
selecting snapshots for evaluation and confirming the safety level
for each element were introduced. The process of generating the
MSE model is shown in Fig. 1.
3.2. Detailed description of the threefold in the MSE model
3.2.1. Evaluation element
Personnel safety is an essential component in general maintain-
ability design standards. Other aspects relating to personnel safety
in maintainability design standards should be considered when se-
lecting evaluation elements.
Accessibility design affects the range of maintenance personnel
vision, the contact area of maintenance personnel, and the space
of maintenance personnel operation. If accessibility is poorly
designed, maintenance personnel rely heavily on experience and
feelings when launching maintenance work, especially when
facing the latest products. These scenarios always cause injury to
the maintenance personnel with no preparation at all. For example,
maintenance personnel will try every means to approach the
maintenance pot with appropriate tools when the target lies on
the critical edge of the contact area. In this situation, the target
will most likely lose balance and fall from the platform. Therefore,
availability is served as the first evaluation element, which consists
of three sub-elements: visibility, reachability, and operation space.
Error proofing and marking designs influence the accuracy of
maintenance personnel in connecting, disassembling, installing,
filling, and so on. Errors objectively and inevitably exist in different
 J. Geng et al. / Computer-Aided Design 45 (2013) 937–949 939

Table 1
The comparison among eight methods.
Evaluation method Superior Inferior

Gray evaluation method Analyzes qualitative element quantitatively Grades subjectively

Fuzzy comprehension evaluation
Analytical hierarchical process
Entropy weight method
Principle component analysis
Extension assessment method
Synthetical index method
Factor analysis method
Qualifies the factors with a fuzzy relationship
Combines the quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis
Calculates with a large amount of information
Decrease the number of factors
Constructs matter element
Uncomplicated principle and calculation
Creates several specific common factors
Membership function assurance
Consistency check might be unfavorable
Ignore human will
The result relies on the change of factors
The result relies on the completeness of indicators and the
rationality of weights
Depends on the weight too much
The common factors have little relevance with each other

Fig. 1. The process of generating the MSE model.

domains. Thus, error proofing design is fundamental to prevent
maintenance personnel accidents. Personnel operation may tread
awry if two parts have similar shapes, but entirely distinct
functions due to poor error proofing design, which may also result
in accidents. For example, if the maintenance personnel hand is in
a dangerous area, the product maintenance can be disabled in this
condition. Furthermore, the correct making design can be carried
out in striking position. Error proofing and marking designs are
affirmed as the second element, which naturally covers two child
elements, namely, error proofing and making designs.
Ergonomic design concerns physical and psychological factors
during the maintenance process. This design investigates the rela-
tionship between body measurements and maintenance objects to
relieve discomfort and increase the efficiency of the maintenance
personnel. Faulty ergonomic designs result in incompatible activi-
ties and fatigue to the maintenance personnel, which is the hidden
peril of accidents in several cases. Ergonomic design considers the
human body as the core during product design. Rational combina-
tion between product design and ergonomic design can effectively
minimize maintenance accidents; thus, ergonomic design is taken
as the third element. The Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) is
an ergonomic technique that evaluates human exposures to pos-
tures, forces, and muscle activities. This technique shows the risk
level from continuous work. The ergonomic evaluation approach
results in a risk score between one and seven, where higher scores
signify greater levels of apparent risks. RULA is adopted as the child
element of the third element ergonomic design.
Physical harm occurs a lot during practical maintenance work.
Heat, electrical, and mechanical injuries are examples of physical
harm. Heat injury can decrease efficiency which leads to human
error, electrical injury occurs from incorrect operation, whereas
mechanical injury springs from shape corner and edge on equip-
ments. Consequently, physical harm preventing design is consid-
ered as the last element comprising the aforementioned injuries. A
hierarchical structure of evaluation element is shown in Fig. 2.
3.2.2. Evaluation criteria
Evaluation criteria are the fundamental basis to launch the
whole VME evaluation work. Corresponding contents related to
maintenance safety in maintainability design standards were con-
sulted to confirm the evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria
will be classified into three grades according to different embod-
iments with the help of relating VME analysis tools. Consequently,
pertinent analysis tools in VME were explicated in detail, combined
with their application in ranking the criteria. Various types of vir-
tual simulation tolls have been applied in all walks of life and have
their own advantages. A summary of all the corresponding criteria
is listed in Table 3.
3.2.2.1. Criteria for accessibility design. (1) Visibility design.
Visibility design should guarantee the maintenance person-
nel with a clear view of the target during the maintenance pro-
cess. Hence it plays a central role in a man–machine system while
manipulation [57,58]. Most frequently used displays should be
grouped together and placed in the optimum visual zone and ar-
ranged in sequence within functional groups to provide a view-
ing flow from left-to-right or top-to-bottom, and vision models
are obtained with a elliptical appearance in a computational way
recently [59–63]. If the maintenance target is located in the best
vision area, the maintenance personnel can clearly see the target
and easily launch the work, as shown in Fig. 3. This result indicates
a favorable visibility design; this situation is classified as rank A.
If the maintenance target is located in the widest vision area, al-
though the maintenance personnel have adjusted the posture, the
eyes may feel tired in focusing the obscene scene for a long time.
This result illustrates a poor visibility design; this situation is clas-
sified as rank B. If the maintenance target is located in the invisible
vision area even if the maintenance personnel adjusted the pos-
ture, they will not see the target at all and attempt to run the work
in terms of past experience. This situation shows a bad visibility
design and is classified as rank C.
940 J. Geng et al. / Computer-Aided Design 45 (2013) 937–949

Fig. 2. The hierarchical structure of evaluation element.

(2) Reachability design.

Reachability design should make it feasible to reach the mainte-
nance target along predefined maintenance path. The spatial reach
area for workplace design purposes is determined by not only the
length of forearm, but also the shoulder breadth, shoulder and
torso rotation, spine bending, and hand operation characters. Var-
ious methods, such as photo printing, device measuring, and so
on, have been presented to dynamically measure the reach area
and generate a reach envelope to show the most possible range
of the hands or fingers according to arm movement limitation
[64–66]. Considering finger and wrist bending in operation, we
take the hand length 18 cm (50th percentile male data) as the
quantitative consideration for reachability criteria. As shown in
Fig. 4, maintenance target locating in space 1 (the inner space
18 cm away from the boundary of the envelope) indicates a fine
reachability design, which is classified as rank A. Furthermore,
maintenance target locating in space 2 (the exterior space 18 cm
out of the boundary of the envelope) illustrates a poor reachability
Fig. 3. Vision area of static eyes.
design, which is classified as rank B. If the maintenance target is
located just around the boundary (the nearby space 18 cm around
the boundary of the envelope) of the envelope, the maintenance
personnel will try to instinctively approach, which can cause acci-
dents. Therefore, it is classified as rank C.
(3) Operation space design.
Operation space design should provide enough space for human
movement and operation. Most VMEs launch collision detections
between two manikins or between a manikin and device based
on two major categories: the discrete collision detection method
and the continuous collision detection method [67–70]. Collision
detection can intuitively analyze the collision condition between
the human body and surroundings in real-time. Therefore, this
method is adapted to check the operation space for new products.
As shown in Fig. 5, collision part will become red if collision occurs,
Fig. 4. Reach envelope of an arm.
which is beneficial for operation space design analysis.
The total operation time at each maintenance spot is certain ac-
cording to the maintenance schedule, so we take the percentage of steps in the whole maintenance procedure, (the percentage of col-
collision state duration as the quantitative consideration for oper- lision duration is 10%–90% of the total operation time) operation
ation space criteria. If collision hardly occurs between the human space design should be improved, and thus be classified as rank B.
body and ambient equipments during the whole maintenance pro- If the human body always collides with its surroundings (the per-
cess (the percentage of collision duration is less than 10% of the to- centage of collision duration is more than 90% of the total operation
tal operation time), the maintenance personnel can freely operate time), the operation space design requires immediate change, and
with hands or tools. This result expresses adequate space for oper- otherwise, maintenance work cannot be carried out. This situation
ation and is classified as rank A. If collision occurs during several is classified as rank C.
 J. Geng et al. / Computer-Aided Design 45 (2013) 937–949
Fig. 5. Collision detection between human and device.
3.2.2.2. Criteria for error proofing design. Error proofing design
ensures the accomplishment of maintenance safety with an eye
on improving designs. Changing the sharp surface of connectors
connected with cables that have the same radius but completely
different functions, or selecting cables with distinguished colors
are examples of error proofing designs. However, the complexity of
the product leads to the accuracy of dangerous position. Therefore,
marking design is essential in this situation, such as direction
arrow, caution alert, tool warning, and so on. Prototype check is
effective especially for complex systems in the VME and discovers
an extraordinary number of defects. Thus, prototype check is the
main approach to confirm the criteria in this section.
(1) Error proofing design.
The total amount of error proofing design is certain according
to the given maintenance process, so we take the percentage of
error proofing design characters amount as the quantitative con-
sideration for error proofing design criteria. After checking the
corresponding position of the virtual prototype according main-
tenance procedures, corresponding characters (the percentage of
error proofing design characters amount is more than 90%) in the
prototype can reasonably reflect the error proofing design and ef-
fectively reduce accidents. Thus, this situation is classified as rank
A. Error proofing designs in products are sometimes (the percent-
age of error proofing design characters amount is 10%–90%) incom-
pletely and irrationally devised; thus, this situation is classified as
rank B. If few error proofing designs can be noted in the deserved
prototype position (the percentage of error proofing design charac-
ters amount is less than 10%), accidents may happen if the mainte-
nance personnel operate without too much experience. Thus, this
situation is classified as rank C.
(2) Marking design.
Similarly, prototype check is adapted to establish marking
design criteria, and we also take the percentage of marking design
characters amount as the quantitative consideration for marking
design criteria. A distinct and logical marking in the prototype
can be noticed for accident prevention (the percentage of marking
design characters amount is more than 90%). Thus, this situation
is classified as rank A. Meanwhile, confused and fragmentary
markings in the prototype present a marking design that requires
proof (the percentage of marking design characters amount is
10%–90%); thus, is classified as rank B. A prototype with few
marking designs is classified as rank C (the percentage of marking
design characters amount is less than 10%).
3.2.2.3. Criteria for ergonomic design. Ergonomic designs focus
on the man–machine interface including physiological and psy-
chological factors to identify different defects in the design and
provide suggestions to ensure safe operation during the mainte-
nance process. In general, ovako working-posture analyzing sys-
tem (OWAS) [71], posture loading on the upper body assessment
941
(LUBA) [72], and rapid upper limb assessment (RULA) [73] are com-
monly used in ergonomic analysis. In addition, RULA is widely used
because of the simple and feasible procedure without interruption.
RULA launched the arm, wrist, neck trunk, and leg analysis, respec-
tively. RULA followed the predefined step-by-step procedure and
dealt with two analysis results to obtain a final score. The inter-
mediate scores, represented by a number and a color, were used
to calculate the final RULA score [73]. Table 2 indicates the score
range for each segment and the associated color. If the final score
is 1 or 2, the corresponding human limb will be green. This result
means an acceptable ergonomic design and the situation is clas-
sified as rank A. A final score of 3 or 4 and a yellow colored limb
means that the situation needs further investigation. A final score
of 5 or 6 and an orange colored limb means that the situation needs
further investigation and has to be changed soon. Both situations
are classified as rank B. If the human limb turns red with a highest
final score of 7, the situation must be investigated and immediately
changed for human safety. This situation is classified as rank C.
3.2.2.4. Criteria for physical hurt prevention design. Prototype check
is employed to confirm the criteria for physical harm prevention
which is the same criteria for error proofing design.
(1) Heat injury prevention design.
Essential heat protecting devices should be established to avoid
contact between the skin and extremely hot or cold surfaces. Thus,
checking the position of heat protecting devices such as metal
mesh and insulating panels and examining the contact between
human limbs and product surfaces can be used to confirm the
criteria for heat injury prevention designs. The total amount of heat
injury prevention is certain according to the given maintenance
process, so we take the percentage of heat injury prevention
characters amount as the quantitative consideration for heat injury
prevention design criteria. If necessary protective devices are
appropriately set (the percentage of heat injury prevention design
characters amount is more than 90%) and no contact happens in the
whole simulation, the condition is classified as rank A. Meanwhile,
if the protective devices are deficient (the percentage of heat
injury prevention design characters amount is 10%–90%) or contact
between human limbs and hazardous surfaces sometimes occur in
the maintenance simulation, the situation is classified as rank B. If
few protective devices are present (the percentage of heat injury
prevention design characters amount is less than 10%) or human
limbs are always in contact with dangerous surfaces during the
simulation process, the situation is classified as rank C.
(2) Electrical injury prevention design.
Most electrical equipments can cause electrical injuries because
of the voltage, electric, and frequency together. Live working is
forbidden during maintenance processes to avoid electric shocks.
Electric cables should be distant from sharp-edged products. Both
aspects should be concerned about confirming the electrical injury
prevention design criteria. If electricity is shut down by virtual
humans in the simulation process and electricity cables during
maintenance procedures probably wire away from sharp-edged
objects, the situation is classified as rank A. If live working is
avoided, but electricity cables are in contact with sharp-edged
objects in several conditions, the situation is classified as rank
B. Meanwhile, if live working is not avoided in the simulation
process whether or not electricity cables wire away, the situation
is classified as rank C because live working is extremely perilous.
(3) Mechanical injury prevention design.
Mechanical injury covers several situations, including crush,
friction, stabbing, and so on. In this section, we focus on sharp-
edged objects exposed in the maintenance path that can affect
maintenance personnel safety. The total amount of mechanical in-
jury prevention is certain according to the given maintenance pro-
cess, so we take the percentage of mechanical injury prevention
942 J. Geng et al. / Computer-Aided Design 45 (2013) 937–949

Table 2
2RULA score.

Table 3
Summary of criteria to corresponding evaluation element.
Evaluation element Rank A Rank B Rank C
Criteria Corresponding Criteria Corresponding Criteria Corresponding
illustration embodiment in illustration embodiment in illustration embodiment in
VME VME VME

Visibility design Target could be Target locates in Target could be Target locates in Target could not Target locates
Accessibility
seen directly the best vision seen partly the widest vision be seen at all in the invisible
design
area because of area after vision area after
interruption adjusting adjusting
Reachability Maintenance Target locates in Maintenance Target locates Maintenance Target locates
design could reach the the envelope could not reach out of the personnel may just around the
target easily the target envelope try to approach boundary of
instinctively envelope
Operation space Maintenance Collision warning Maintenance Collision warning Maintenance Collision
design personnel could occurs hardly personnel occurs personnel always warning always
operate freely collides with sometimes collides with occurs
surroundings surroundings
sometimes
Error proofing Error proofing Safety accident Error proofing Safety accident Error proofing Safety accident Few error
design design could be reduced design is could be reduced design may happen proofing design
effectively reasonably in to a certain incompletely and probably if can be noted in
prototype extent irrationally in maintenance deserved
prototype personnel position of
operates without prototype
too much
experience
Marking design Distinct and Confused and Few marking
logical marking fragmentary design could be
marking found
Ergonomic RULA Acceptable Final score is 1 or Ergonomic Final score is 3–6 Ergonomic Final score is 7
design ergonomic 2 with green design need to be with yellow or design need to be or higher with
design color investigated brown investigated red color
further and further and
change soon change
immediately

Physical hurt Heat injury Necessary protecting devise is set Protecting devise is deficient or human Few protecting devise could be
preventing preventing appropriately and no contact happens limb contact with the dangerous discovered or human limb always
design design between human limb and dangerous surface sometimes contact with dangerous surface
surface
Electrical injury Electric power is shut down in Live working is avoided but electricity Live working is not avoided no
preventing simulation and corresponding cables contact with sharp edge in matter electricity cables wire
design electricity cables wire away from several conditions probably or not
sharp edge probably
Mechanical Sharp edge is chamfered Chamfer is missing in some necessary Few chamfer occurred
injury preventing comprehensively and precisely position
design

characters amount as the quantitative consideration for mechan-
ical injury prevention design criteria. If sharp-edged objects are
comprehensively and precisely chamfered (the percentage of me-
chanical injury prevention design characters amount is more than
90%), the situation is classified as rank A. Moreover, if chamfer is
missing in several necessary positions (the percentage of mechan-
ical injury prevention design characters amount is 10%–90%), the
situation is classified as rank B. If few chamfer in the product are
potential hazards (the percentage of mechanical injury prevention
design characters amount is less than 10%), this situation is classi-
fied as rank C.
3.2.3. Evaluation method
Evaluation method focuses on three relevant issues: selecting
snapshots for evaluation; judging the safety level for each element;
and confirming factor weights for calculation.
The snapshots used for evaluation are determined by main-
tenance spots during a maintenance process. The maintenance
 J. Geng et al. / Computer-Aided Design 45 (2013) 937–949 943

process is continuous, whereas the operation at each spot can be Table 4

regarded as a discrete point. Operation at each spot shows high Scale of relative importance.

similarity in that it focuses on hand or arm activities from main- Intensity of importance Verbal scale
tenance personnel. Other body parts are relatively fixed, and all 1 Equal importance
the maintenance operation spots occupy most of the whole main- 3 Weak importance of one over another
tenance time. Consequently, maintenance spots are selected as the 5 Essential or strong importance
snapshots are used for evaluation to comprehensively and system- 7 Demonstrated importance
9 Absolute importance
atically detect safety design flaws. Furthermore, a designer needs 2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate value between the two adjacent
to confirm several main spots according to maintenance schedules judgment
or maintenance simulations, such as disassembling bolts, lifting
hatch covers, disconnecting cables, removing device, and so on.
Table 5
After selecting snapshots for evaluation, the safety level of each
RI value.
element is judged according to human operation analysis or pro-
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
totype checks of all the snapshots from the maintenance process.
RI 0 0 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45
For each element, the selected snapshots provide different results
to reflect the corresponding product design characters. The worse
result will be treated as the safety level of each element because
The corresponding RI value is listed in Table 5.
safety accident can occur from any micro manipulation. None of
Calculate CR with Eq. (5).
the design limitation should be ignored. In this way, designers can
focus on the design flaws that reduce product safety level directly CI
and rapidly. CR = . (5)
RI
According to the aforementioned established evaluation model,
If CR ≤ 0.10, the consistency is considered acceptable [81].
the analytical hierarchical process (AHP) is adapted to confirm
(4) Suppose a goal has m criteria A1 , A2 , . . . , Am with their weights
factor weight with information from actual experience. AHP has
a1 , a2 , . . . , am , and Aj (0 < j < m) has n subcriteria
various applications since its introduction by Saaty [43–46]. Nu-
B1 , B2 , . . . , Bn with the weights b1j , b2j , . . . , bnj , Eq. (6) is in-
merous applications of this method can be found in maintenance,
troduced to obtain the weight of level B to the goal.
such as confirming the rational weight of importance of mainte-
nance priority ranking factors [74], selecting corresponding main- m

tenance policy [75], and prioritizing maintenance activities [76]. bi = bij aj , i = 1 , 2 , . . . , n. (6)
The AHP is illustrated briefly as follows. j =1

(1) Construct a hierarchy after analyzing the relationship between Calculate the total CR with Eq. (7).
the goal, criteria, and subcriteria. Thus, a flexible hierarchy can (5)
be constructed reasonably according to the problem that needs
m
to be solved. 
CI(j)aj
(2) Determine the relative importance of the alternatives with re- j =1
gard to each of the criteria or between two criteria, and gen- CR = m
. (7)
erate an n-by-n matrix A = (aij )n×n to represent the qualified RI(j)aj

judgment on pairs [77], where aij is the relative importance of j =1

criterion Ci and criterion Cj . If CR ≤ 0.10, the consistency is considered acceptable [81].

a
11 a12 ··· a1n

.. ..
a
 . ··· .
 4. Case study
A =  21  aij > 0,

 .. .. ..
. . . an−1,n Based on the established MSE model and corresponding virtual

an1 an2 ··· ann maintenance simulation for an APU disassembling process, main-
tenance safety is evaluated to determine the design flaws and op-
aji = 1/aij (i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n). (1)
timize maintenance safety design as early as possible. DELMIA was
In this process, linguistic terms generally associated to scalar selected as the virtual maintenance environment.
numerical values are adopted to express the judgment of the
decision maker [75]. The scale [78] proposed by Saaty [79] is 4.1. APU disassembling process simulation
shown in Table 4.
(3) Measure the consistency through the Consistency Ratio (CR) Maintenance personnel adjusts the supportability device to
value obtained by dividing the Consistency Index (CI) by the assure that all brackets remain properly in position, and then
corresponding Random Index (RI) evaluated by Saaty through connect the APU and the supportability device to disassemble the
the generation of a random matrix with different dimensions. connecting components between the APU and the plane. Finally,
Eq. (2) is applied to obtain the weight of each alternative, separate the supportability device from APU. The simulation
where w is an eigenvector of A with the maximum eigen- process is shown in Fig. 6 and following the principle of selecting
value n, and then calculate the maximum eigenvalue λmax from snapshot, five maintenance spots are selected as the snapshot for
Eq. (3), where w̄ is the normalized eigenvector of A and analysis.
λmax ≥ n
Aw = nw (2) 4.2. Maintenance safety analysis
Aw̄ = λmax w̄. (3)
Detailed analysis for each evaluation element is illustrated with
Calculate CI [80] with Eq. (4). figures and corresponding descriptions. The word description in
λmax − n each figure with green, yellow, and red background indicates rank
CI = . (4) A, B, and C, respectively.
n−1
944 J. Geng et al. / Computer-Aided Design 45 (2013) 937–949

Fig. 6. APU disassembling simulation process.

4.2.1. Accessibility analysis 4.3. The AHP process

Visibility analysis: All the connecting components and brackets
1 2 3 3
 
have favorable visibility design and belong to rank A of the visibility
1/2 1 4 2
criteria. The detailed visibility analysis is shown in Fig. 7, and The incidence matrix of four criteria is A = 1/3 1/4 1 2
,
visibility analysis is evaluated as rank A. 1/3 1/2 1/2 1
Reachability analysis: All the connecting components and
0.7275
brackets have favorable visibility design, except the front connect- and λmax = 4.2596, corresponding eigenvector ω = 00..5886
2845
,
ing component, as shown in Fig. 8. The target is located around 0.2083
the boundary of the envelope and belongs to rank C, whereas the 0.4022
others belong to rank A. Thus, reachability analysis is evaluated as 0.3254
and normalized eigenvector ϖ = 0.1573
.
rank C.
0.1151
Operation space analysis: As shown in Fig. 9, collision occurs The incidence matrix of the elements under each criterion is as
hardly when operating on the bracket and two connecting compo- follows.
nents outboard belongs to rank A. Collision occurring sometimes
  1 2 1
when operating on the two interior brackets belonging to rank B, The incidence matrix of accessibility criteria is B1 = 1/2 1 3 ,
1 1/3 1
whereas collision occurring always when operating on the three 0.8257 
interior connecting components and front connecting component λ1 = 3.0536, corresponding eigenvector ω1 = 0.5201 , and
belongs to rank C. 0.2184
0.5279
Thus, operation space analysis is evaluated as rank C because of
the frequent collision. normalized eigenvector ϖ1 = 0.3325 .
0.1396
 
1 3
4.2.2. Error proofing analysis The incidence matrix of error proofing criteria is B2 = 1/3 1
,
0.9487
 
The two terminal sockets in the pump under APU need an error λ2 = 2, corresponding eigenvector ω2 = , and normalized
0.3162
proofing design because of the same radius, as shown in Fig. 10.
0.7441
 
Error proofing designs irrational and no marking design can be eigenvector ϖ2 = 0.2559 .
found in the prototype, so error proofing analysis is evaluated as
The incidence matrix of ergonomic criteria is B3 = [1] , λ3 =
rank B and the marking analysis is evaluated as rank C.
1, ω3 = [1], and normalized eigenvector ϖ3 = [1].
The incidence matrix
 of physical harm prevention criteria is
4.2.3. Ergonomic analysis 1 6 1/3
All the ergonomic analysis have an unfavorable final score B4 = 1/6 1 3 λ4 = 3.0183, corresponding eigenvector
of 7 because of the arm supporting and checking balance when
3
0.6323 1/3 1 0.3874
maintenance personnel stand on the support device, as shown in ω4 = 0.7238 , and normalized eigenvector ϖ4 = 0.4434 .
Fig. 11. However, the outboard primary connecting component has 0.2762 0.1692
a final score of 5. Thus, ergonomic analysis is evaluated as rank C. Consistency calculation.
For matrix A, CI = λmax −n
n −1
= 4.25964−1
−4
= 0.0865, and RI = 0.90;
0.0865
4.2.4. Physical hurt analysis thus, CR = RI = 0.9 = 0.096 < 0.1.
CI

No heat source exists in APU and no electronic operation Consequently, the consistency is considered acceptable.
occurs in the simulation. Thus, heat injury prevention design and Similarly, for matrix B1 , B2 , B3 , B4
electronic injury prevention design are configured as rank B to CR1 = 0.0462 < 0.1
represent an average design. All the sharp edges on the equipment
and frame around the operation spot and all the contact on the CR2 = 0 < 0.1
support device are designed without chamber, as shown in Fig. 12. CR3 = 0 < 0.1
Thus, mechanical harm analysis is evaluated as rank C. CR4 = 0.0158 < 0.1.
J. Geng et al. / Computer-Aided Design 45 (2013) 937–949 945

Fig. 7. Visibility analysis.

Fig. 8. Reachability analysis.

946 J. Geng et al. / Computer-Aided Design 45 (2013) 937–949

Fig. 9. Operation space analysis.

Table 6 Ranks A, B, and C are assigned 1, 2, and 3 scores, respectively. A

Maintenance safety analysis of the case study. lower score indicates a more favorabledesign.
0.5279

Criteria Element Classification
= 1.9442, and the
 
For accessibility, R1 = 1 3 3 0.3325
Accessibility Visibility A 0.1396
Reachability C analysis result is between A and B. 
Operation space C  0.7441
For error proofing, R2 = 2 3 0.2559 = 2.2559; thus, the

Error proofing Error proofing B
Marking C
analysis result is between B and C.
Ergonomic RULA C
Physical hurt prevention Heat injury B For ergonomic, R3 = (3)(1) = 3; thus, the analysisresult 
is C.
Electrical injury B   0.3874
For physical hurt prevention, R4 = 2 2 3 0.4434 =
Mechanical injury C
0.1692
2.1624, and the ergonomic analysis result is between B and C.
All the consistency is considered acceptable. Consequently, for maintenance safety,
Construct a matrix ω′ with ω1 , ω2 , ω3 , ω4 R4 ω
 
R = R1 R2 R3
0.5279 0.7441 1 0.3874 0.4022
   
w =
′
0.3325 0.2559 0 0.4434  0.3254
= 1.9442 2.2559 2.1624 

0.1396 0.1692 3
0 0 0.1573
0.1151
and
= 2.2368.
0.5279 0.7441 1 0.3874
 
w ω = 0.3325 0.2559 0 0.4434
′ The maintenance safety analysis result is between B and C,
0.1396 0 0 0.1692 and close to rank B. Appropriate improvement can be carried
0.4022 out pertinently according to the four criteria analysis results and
 
0.6563
 
0.3254 maintenance safety analysis result, respectively, to enhance the
× = 0.2680
0.1573 maintenance safety design.
0.0756
0.1151
CR = 0.0462 + 0 + 0 + 0.0158 = 0.062 < 0.1. 5. Conclusion and discussion

Consequently, the consistency is considered acceptable. In this paper, a maintenance safety evaluation model applicable
The maintenance safety analysis is summarized in Table 6. to the virtual maintenance environment was proposed to evaluate
 J. Geng et al. / Computer-Aided Design 45 (2013) 937–949 947

Fig. 10. Error proofing analysis.

Fig. 11. Ergonomic analysis.

maintenance safety design with the help of maintenance simula-
tion and prototype check. The presented evaluation model includes
evaluation element, evaluation criteria, and evaluation methodol-
ogy after fully considering the characters and framework of the vir-
tual maintenance environment. The advantages of the proposed
system are summarized as follows: (1) Launch the maintenance
safety evaluation in the product design stage to improve the main-
tenance safety design and decrease the possibility of accidents.
(2) Maintenance safety evaluation work performed intuitively via
virtual maintenance technology. (3) Combine static check and dy-
namic simulation from maximizing prototype to determine the
design flaws. (4) Evaluate the qualitative maintenance element
quantitatively with AHP to provide more purposeful advice for de-
sign improvement.
However, several limitations exist in the proposed evaluation
model. First, only the 50th percentile anthropometric data was
used with human models. Thus, the diversity of virtual dummy
anthropometry was ignored. Several amendment methods or
appropriate multivariate data and techniques are needed to solve
the problem. Second, safety analysis at each snapshot aims at
the relatively static virtual human, whereas the postural variation
happens obviously during maintenance process. Thus, the amount
of slight variation affecting the final result of each snapshot should
be considered. Third, the dummy in VME is nude and does not
reflect the restrictions clothing impose, such as reachability and
ergonomics. If clothing is considered, partial analysis will slightly
vibrate. Recent research has focused on novel product prototypes
from different domains in the laboratory. Parts of those users have
provided positive feedback for improving the maintenance safety
design against similar products. Safety maintenance requirement
is essential, and more feedback information including past accident
records is needed to validate the proposed method in this
paper. Ongoing and future work will focus on improvements
including virtual manikin anthropometry, slight variation at
each snapshot, and clothing consideration. Furthermore, more
evaluation elements in the virtual maintenance environment and
corresponding criteria will be added to the existing model if
possible.
948 J. Geng et al. / Computer-Aided Design 45 (2013) 937–949
Fig. 12. Physical hurt analysis.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the reviewers for their careful evaluation and
thoughtful comments. The authors also thank the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (No. SKVR-10-17) for financially
supporting this research.
References
[1] Li JR, Khoo LP, Tor SB. Desktop virtual reality for maintenance training: an
object oriented prototype system (V-REALISM). Comput Ind 2003;52:109–25.
[2] Kara Ali, Ozbek MehmetEfe, Cagiltay NergizErcil, Aydin Elif. Maintenance,
sustainability and extendibility in virtual and remote laboratories. Procedia
Soc Behav Sci 2011;28:722–8.
[3] Pouliquen Mamy, Bernard Alain, Marsot Jacques, Chodorge Laurent. Virtual
hands and virtual reality multimodal platform to design safer industrial
systems. Comput Ind 2007;58:46–56.
[4] Esque S, Mattila J, Saarinen H, Siuko M, Virvalo T, Muhammad A, et al. The use of
virtual prototyping and simulation in ITER maintenance device development.
Fusion Eng Des 2007;82:2073–80.
[5] Ng AmosHC, Adolfsson Josef, Sundberg Martin, De Vin LeoJ. Virtual manufac-
turing for press line monitoring and diagnostics. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2008;
48:565–75.
[6] Elzendoorn Ben, de Baar Marco, Chavan Rene, Goodman Timothy, Heemskerk
Cock. Analysis of the ITER ECH upper port launcher remote maintenance using
virtual reality. Fusion Eng Des 2009;84:733–5.
[7] Liu Xinhua, Peng Gaoliang, Liu Xiumei, Hou Youfu. Development of a
collaborative virtual maintenance environment with agent technology.
J Manuf Syst 2010;29:173–81.
[8] Ieronutti Lucio, Chittaro Luca. Employing virtual humans for education and
training in X3D/VRML worlds. Comput Educ 2007;49:93–109.
[9] Wang J, Yang JB, Sen P, Ruxton T. Safety based design and maintenance
optimization of large marine engineering systems. Appl Ocean Res 1996;18:
13–27.
[10] Hale AR, Heming BHJ, Smit K, Rodenburg FGTh, van leeuwen ND. Evaluating
safety in the management of maintenance activities in the chemical process
industry. Saf Sci 1998;28(1):21–4.
[11] Duncan H, Ken Brewer, Canady S. Probabilistic safety assessment support for
the maintenance rule at Duke Power Company. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 1999;63:
243–9.
[12] Abdul-Nour Georges, Demers Michel, Vaillancourt Raynald. Probabilistic
safety assessment and reliability based maintenance policies: application to
the emergency diesel generators of a nuclear power plant. Comput Ind Eng
2002;42:433–8.
[13] Sachon M, Paté-Cornell E. Delays and safety in airline maintenance. Reliab Eng
Syst Saf 2000;67:301–9.
[14] Beugin J, Renaux D, Cauffriez L. A SIL quantification approach based on
an operating situation model for safety evaluation in complex guided
transportation systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2007;92:1686–700.
[15] Marono M, Pena JA, Santamaria J. The ‘PROCESO’ index: a new methodology
for the evaluation of operational safety in the chemical industry. Reliab Eng
Syst Saf 2006;91:349–61.
[16] Flammini Francesco, Marrone Stefano, Mazzocca Nicola, Vittorini Valeria. A
new modeling approach to the safety evaluation of N-modular redundant
computer systems in presence of imperfect maintenance. Reliab Eng Syst Saf
2009;94:1422–32.
[17] Haber S, O’Brien JN, Methlay DS, Crouch DA. Influence of organizational factors
on performance reliability. In: NUREG/CR-5538. 1991.
[18] Apostolakis GE, Davoudian K, Jya-Syn W. The work process analysis model
(WPAM). Reliab Eng Syst Saf 1994;45:107–25.
[19] Baumond G, Menage F, Scheiter JR, Spurgin A, Vogel A. Quantifying human
and organizational factors in accident management using decision trees: the
HORAAM method. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2001;70:113–24.
[20] Van Steen JFJ, Brascamp MH. On the measurement of safety performance.
In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Loss Prevention and
Safety Promotion in the Process Industries. 1995.
[21] Papazoglou IA. Management factors in process plant safety. Technical note
I.94.102, ISEI/IE/2660/94. 1994.
[22] Pate Cornell ME, Murphy DM. Human and management factors in probabilistic
risk assessment: the SAM approach and observations from recent applications.
Reliab Eng Syst Saf 1996;53.
[23] Oien K. A framework for the establishment of organizational risk indicators.
Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2001;74:147–67.
[24] Kelly TP, McDermid JA. A systematic approach to safety case maintenance.
Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2001;71:271–84.
[25] Marseguerra Marzio, Zio Enrico, Podofillini Luca. A multiobjective genetic
algorithm approach to the optimization of the technical specifications of a
nuclear safety system. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2004;84:87–99.
[26] Gauthier François, Giraud Laurent, Bournival Sylvain, Bourbonnière Réal,
Richard Jean-Guy, Daigle Renaud, et al. Development of a loading dock safety
evaluation tool. J Saf Res 2007;38:35–51.
[27] Carnero Ma Carmen. An evaluation system of the setting up of predictive
maintenance programs. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2006;91:945–63.
 J. Geng et al. / Computer-Aided Design 45 (2013) 937–949
[28] Wei Chunfu, Pei Zheng, Li Huamin. An induced OWA operator in coal mine
safety evaluation. J Comput System Sci 2011;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcss.2011.11.003.
[29] Lu Lixuan, Jiang Jin. Analysis of on-line maintenance strategies for k-out-of-n
standby safety systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2007;92:144–55.
[30] Bamber L. Principles of accident prevention. In: Ridley J, editor. Sufify at work.
London: Butterworths; 1986. p. 131–43.
[31] Zhao Yuyang, Li Ming, Yuan Yi. Operation and maintenance integration to
improve safety. Comput Chem Eng 2000;24:401–7.
[32] Elvik Rune. Economic deregulation and transport safety: a synthesis of
evidence from evaluation studies. Accid Anal Prev 2006;38:678–86.
[33] Senge PM. La quintadisciplina, el arte y la practica de la organizacion abierta
alaprendizaje. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Juan Granica SA; 1992.
[34] Benedyk Rachel, Minister Sarah. Applying the BeSafe method to product safety
evaluation. Appl Ergon 1998;29:5–13.
[35] Pedersen LM. Reply to letter regarding realistic evaluation as a new way to
design and evaluate occupational safety interventions. Saf Sci 2011;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.11.016.
[36] Sachon M, Paté-Cornell E. Delays and safety in airline maintenance. Reliab Eng
Syst Saf 2000;67:301–9.
[37] Neitzel RichardL, Seixas NoahS, Harris MichaelJ, Camp Janice. Exposure to fall
hazards and safety climate in the aircraft maintenance industry. J Saf Res 2008;
39:391–402.
[38] Ural Suphi, Demirkol Sitki. Evaluation of occupational safety and health in
surface mines. Saf Sci 2008;46:1016–24.
[39] Reiman Teemu, Oedewald Pia. Assessing the maintenance unit of a nuclear
power plant-identifying the culture conceptions concerning the maintenance
work and the maintenance organization. Saf Sci 2006;44:821–50.
[40] Cheng Dong-quan, Gu Feng. Application of improved grey correlative method
in safety evaluation on fully mechanized mining faces. Procedia Earth Planet
Sci 2011;52:58–63.
[41] Liu Shuang, Hurley Michael, Lowell KimE, Siddique Abu-BakerM, Diggle Art,
Cook DavidC. Using an integrated fuzzy set and deliberative multi-criteria
evaluation approach to facilitate decision-making in invasive species manage-
ment. Ecol Econ 2010;69:2374–82.
[42] Wen Kun-Li. A Matlab toolbox for grey clustering and fuzzy comprehensive
evaluation. Adv Eng Softw 2008;39:137–45.
[43] Ossadnik W, Lange O. AHP-based evaluation of AHP-software. European J Oper
Res 1999;118:578–88.
[44] Triantaphyllou E, Mann SH. Using the analytic hierarchy process for decision
making in engineering applications: some challenges. Int J Ind Eng Appl Pract
1995;2(1):35–44.
[45] Mohanty RP, Deshmukh SG. Advanced manufacturing technology selection:
strategic model for learning and evaluation. Int J Prod Econ 1998;55:295–307.
[46] Bhutta KS, Huq F. Supplier selection process: a comparison of the total cost of
ownership and the analytic hierarchy process approaches. Int J Supply Chain
Manag 2002;3:126–35.
[47] Yari G, Chaji AR. Maximum Bayesian entropy method for determining ordered
weighted averaging operator weights. Comput Ind Eng 2012;63:338–42.
[48] Zou Zhi-Hong, Yun Yi, Sun Jing-Nan. Entropy method for determination
of weight of evaluating in fuzzy synthetic evaluation for water quality
assessment. J Environ Sci 2006;18(5):1020–3.
[49] Elangovan M, Babu Devasenapati S, Sakthivel NR, Ramachandran KI. Evalua-
tion of expert system for condition monitoring of a single point cutting tool
using principle component analysis and decision tree algorithm. Expert Syst
Appl 2011;38:4450–9.
[50] Schweizer Katrin, Cattin PhilippeC, Brunner Reinald, Müller Bert, Huber Cora,
Romkes Jacqueline. Automatic selection of a representative trial from multiple
measurements using Principle Component Analysis. J Biomech 2012;45:
2306–9.
[51] Ren Song, Bai Yue-Ming, Jiang De-Yi, Li An Yu. An extension evaluation model
for building safety under the influence of blasting seismic. Procedia Eng 2012;
43:168–73.
[52] Hwang CG, Ingraffea AR. Virtual crack extension method for calculating the
second order derivatives of energy release rates for multiply cracked systems.
Eng Fract Mech 2007;74:1468–87.
[53] Lei Zhang. Grey synthetical evaluation of university’s engineering innovation
ability. Syst Eng Procedia 2012;3:319–25.
949
[54] Zhang Peihe, Jin Xiuliang, Liu Yuhui, Wang Zhengxi, Liu Nana. Synthetical
analysis on geological factors controlling coalbed methane. Procedia Earth
Planet Sci 2011;3:144–53.
[55] Skerman HelenM, Yates PatsyM, Battistutta Diana. Identification of cancer-
related symptom clusters: an empirical comparison of exploratory factor
analysis methods. J Pain Symptom Manage 2012;44(1):10–22.
[56] Afkhami Abbas, Khajavi Farzad, Khanmohammadi Hamid. Investigation of
oxidation and tautomerization of a recently synthesized Schiff base in
micellar media using multivariate curve resolution alternative least squares
and rank annihilation factor analysis methods. Anal Chim Acta 2009;647:
189–194.
[57] Vinayak DibakarSen. A vision modeling framework for DHM using geometri-
cally estimated FoV. Comput Aided Des 2012;44:15–28.
[58] Anderson JR, Matessa M, Lebiere C. Act-r: a theory of higher level cognition
and its relation to visual attention. Human Comput Interact 1997;12(4):
439–462.
[59] Itti L, Koch C. Computational modelling of visual attention. Nat Rev Neurosci
2001;2:194–203.
[60] Liu Hantao, Heynderickx Ingrid. A simplified human vision model applied to a
blocking artifact metric. In: Computer analysis of images and patterns. 2007.
p. 334–41.
[61] Neokleous KleanthisC, Schizas ChristosN. Computational modeling of visual
selective attention. Procedia Comput Sci 2011;72:44–245.
[62] Georgeson MarkA. Edge-finding in human vision: a multi-stage model based
on the perceived structure of plaids. Image Vis Comput 1998;16:389–405.
[63] Bijaoui Albert, Rue Frkdkic. A multiscale vision model adapted to the
astronomical images. Signal Process 1995;46:345–62.
[64] Bullock MargaretI. The determination of functional arm reach boundaries for
operation of manual controls. Ergonomics 1974;17(3).
[65] Woodson WesleyE. Human factors design handbook. McGram-Hill; 1981.
[66] Nowak Ewa. Determination of the spatial reach area of the arms for workplace
design purposes. Ergonomics 1987;21(7):493–507.
[67] Bez HE, Bricis AM, Ascough J. A collision detection method with applications in
CAD systems for the apparel industry. Comput Aided Des 1996;28(1):27–32.
[68] Chang Jung-Woo, Wang Wenping, Kim Myung-Soo. Efficient collision
detection using a dual OBB-sphere bounding volume hierarchy. Comput Aided
Des 2010;42:50–7.
[69] Jia Xiaohong, Choi Yi-King, Mourrain Bernard, Wang Wenping. An algebraic
approach to continuous collision detection for ellipsoids. Comput Aided Geom
Design 2011;28:164–76.
[70] Chen Ying, Shen Li-Yong, Yuan Chun-Ming. Collision and intersection
detection of two ruled surfaces using bracket method. Comput Aided Geom
Design 2011;28:114–26.
[71] Karhu O, Kansi P, Kuofina I. Correcting working postures in industry: a practical
method for analysis. Appl Ergon 1977;8(4):199–201.
[72] Kee D, Karwowski W. LUBA: an assessment technique for postural loading on
the upper body based on joint motion discomfort and maximum holding time.
Appl Ergon 2001;32(4):357–66.
[73] McAtamney L, Corlett EN. RULA: a survey method for the investigation of
work-related upper limb disorders. Appl Ergon 1993;24(2):91–9.
[74] Ramadhan RH, Wahhab HIA, Duffuaa SO. The use of an analytical hierarchy
process in pavement maintenance priority ranking. J Qual Maint Eng 1999;
5(1):25–39.
[75] Emblemsvag J, Tonning L. Decision support in selecting maintenance
organization. J Qual Maint Eng 2003;9(1):11–24.
[76] Shen Q, Lo K, Wang Q. Priority setting in maintenance management: a modified
multi-attribute approach using analytic hierarchy process. Constr Manag Econ
1998;16:693–702.
[77] Ramadhan RH, Wahhab HIA, Duffuaa SO. The use of an analytical hierarchy
process in pavement maintenance priority ranking. J Qual Maint Eng 1999;
5(1):25–39.
[78] Triantaphyllou E, Lootsma FA, Pardalos PM, Mann SH. On the evaluation and
application of different scales for quantifying pairwise comparisons in fuzzy
sets. J Multi Crit Decis Anal 1994;3(3):133–55.
[79] Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw Hill; 1980.
[80] Saaty TL. The analytic network process. Pittsburg: RWS Publications; 2001.
[81] Forman E, Selly MA. Decision by objectives. London: World Scientific; 2001.