Proceedings of the 27th ASME International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering

June15-20, 2008 • Estoril, Portugal

OMAE-2008-57071

FREE-FALL LIFEBOATS:
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THE IMPACT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
ON TECHNICAL AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE

Antonio Simões Ré Scott MacKinnon Brian Veitch

Institute for Ocean technology SafetyNet Research Chair Ocean Engineering Research Centre
National Research Council Memorial University Memorial University
St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada

particularly related to occupant safety issues, and recommended that

ABSTRACT
Free-fall lifeboats offer a means to evacuate a ship or offshore
installation rapidly, without the lowering operations associated with
conventional davit launched lifeboats on wire falls. The performance of
free-fall lifeboats during launch and sail-away has been investigated
using a model test campaign. The main focus of the experimental
evaluation was on the performance of this evacuation system in a range
of different weather conditions. Measurements were also made of
motions during the launch process, which are relevant to occupational
safety issues. Examples of the tests are presented with a focus on
results that warrant scrutiny in terms of human health and performance.
The results lead us to question the IMO criteria used to assess the
occupational safety of free-fall lifeboats.
INTRODUCTION
Free-fall lifeboats are widely accepted as means of evacuation for ships
and offshore petroleum installations (IMO 1974, 1997, 2006a,b),
although the available knowledge of the actual performance of free-fall
systems is limited. In response to this gap, free-fall lifeboat launching
has been modeled by several investigators (e.g. Tasaki & Ogawa 1990,
Nelson et al. 1991, Boef 1992a,b, Frazer-Nash 1993, Nelson et al.
1996, Nelson 1996, Khondoker 1998 & 1999a,b, Willis et al. 1999,
Khondoker & Arai 2000, Wisniewski et al. 1999). The main focus of
much of this modeling work is on the launch parameters of free-fall
evacuation stations and their effects on the performance of the lifeboat
when it enters the water. The corresponding goals are to establish the
boundaries for launch parameters that should ensure that the lifeboats
work as intended, including that they provide adequate clearance
between the lifeboat and the host platform, and have forward velocity
away from the launch site after they are launched. Further, there is
interest in ensuring that the lifeboats so launched clear the platform
without subjecting the occupants to accelerations and motions that
might cause injuries.
Tasaki & Ogawa (1990), Nelson et al. (1991), Boef (1992a,b), and
Nelson & Khandpur (1992) presented mathematical models of the free-
fall launch process, as well as applications to accelerations in terms of
human response criteria. Nelson and colleagues (Nelson et al. 1994,
1996 and Nelson 1992) have presented additional work on the topic,
free-fall lifeboat installations should be certified as a single and
complete system, amongst other things. The analytical treatment by
Boef (1992a,b) and its subsequent implementation includes effects of
waves and some comparison with full scale trials results.
Frazer-Nash (1993) looked at the feasibility of using a FEA code
to model the launch of free-fall lifeboats, including the launch kinetics,
structural response, and occupant motion. The kinetics were found to
be well modeled, the structural response was modeled but there was a
lack of benchmark data for validation, and occupant modeling appeared
to agree with observed behavior. The main point was to demonstrate
that the modeling approach was suitable. Several cases were presented
to illustrate how the motion of occupants under non-ideal conditions
(e.g. loose harness) could be assessed.
Khondoker (1998 & 1999a) presented a simple two-dimensional
numerical model that examined ramp height, length, and angle for
launches into calm water. The effects of the various parameters were
described, showing that some combinations result in successful
launches and others in unsuccessful launches. This work is similar to
other numerical modeling work, such as those reported by Nelson (see
above). Khondoker presented four categories of calm water launches,
two of which were classified as successful and the other two as not.
Examples of each category were presented from his numerical model,
and reference was made to observations of similar results in model
tests. Specifically, type Ia and Ib launches were reported by Arai et al.
(1995) and all types were reported in Tasaki et al. (1992).
Type IIa launches were described as very dangerous and
susceptible to collisions with the host platform with detrimental effects
on the occupants. Khondoker described type IIb as being even worse
and likely to cause severe injuries to the occupants. It is worth
emphasizing that these predictions were based on calm water launches.
Khondoker (1998) and Wisniewski et al. (1999) used a numerical
approach to examine the accelerations associated with free-fall
lifeboats with the aim of using the results to improve seat design and so
reduce the risk of injury to the occupants. Wisniewski et al. (1999)
included model test results in his study. Using a similar approach,
Khondoker (1999b), Khondoker & Khalil (1998) and Khondoker &
Arai (2000) investigated launching arrangement alternatives, and
compared them in terms of accelerations to evaluate the risk of injury
to the occupants. Further numerical work has been presented by Arai et
al. (1996a & b), Arai (1998 & 2000), and Arai & Okazaki (1999),

1 Copyright 2008 by ASME

which are concerned with the influence of launch parameters and their
effects in terms of lifeboat motions and occupant safety, the latter of
which relates particularly to accelerations and seat arrangements.
Willis et al. (1999) considered the influence of high winds on
launch performance. They did wind tunnel experiments with a model
and then incorporated the results in a numerical model (Nelson’s),
which when exercised, showed that high winds could alter the motion
of the boat during free-fall.
Given the sort of findings reported in the literature, it is unclear
that launch parameters carefully chosen to ensure good performance in
calm water would be satisfactory in wind and waves, or in off-design
conditions such as in damage scenarios (e.g. involving list or trim), or
when the host vessel has moderate to high motions as it would under
corresponding weather conditions. Wind, waves and platform motions
would alter the launch conditions, although whether enough to cause an
unsuccessful launch is unclear and requires further examination.
The experimental campaign reported in the present paper focused
particularly on launch performance in waves and winds.
EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH
The experimental campaign was carried out in the Offshore
Engineering Basin (OEB) at the National Research Council’s Institute
for Ocean Technology. The OEB has a 65m×26m working area,
bounded on two adjacent sides by wave makers and on the opposite
sides by wave absorbers. The water depth during all the tests was 2.8m.
A bank of fans was used to provide wind. A four-legged truss structure
was fixed to the floor of the OEB and served as the platform for the
evacuation station. A general arrangement of the lifeboat station as
fitted to the platform in the OEB is illustrated in Figure 1.
OFFSHORE ENGINEERING BASIN,
LAUNCH SYSTEM DETAIL
MODEL 1:13 FREEFALL TEMPSC
CONDITION: INTACT PERPENDICULAR (baseline case)
LAUNCH RAMP
HORIZONTAL DISPLACER
(tube frame)
VERTICAL DISPLACER
(jack table)
MODEL PLATFORM ANAMOMETER
ARRAY
OEB TANK FLOOR
Figure 1. Arrangement of free-fall lifeboat station and model launching into head seas from a fixed platform.
The free-fall lifeboat launching station included an adjustable
launch ramp for changing the launch angle and ramp length, an
orientation template for changing the launch orientation with respect to
the wind and waves, and an adjustable table for changing the launch
height. The wind and wave conditions were monitored with an array of
anemometers and wave probes. The anemometers were mounted to the
side of the fixed platform at 10, 15, 20 and 25m full scale equivalent
height. The wave probes were located to the port side of the launch area
and distributed longitudinally about the target splashdown point of the
lifeboat.
A generic style free-fall lifeboat model at 1:13 scale was used in
the tests, corresponding to an 11.25m long lifeboat with a capacity of
about 50 persons (Figure 2). It was fitted with a four-bladed propeller,
an active steering nozzle, an electric motor and shaft, rechargeable
batteries, a wireless video camera located inside the canopy at the
coxswain’s location, a radio transmitter, a pressure transducer in the
hull near the bow and a water immersion sensor on the bow at the
waterline level. The model as tested had a vertical centre of gravity of
0.117m and pitch and roll gyradius of 0.202 and 0.080, respectively.
This represented about 1% difference from the target VCG and pitch
gyradius and about 5% difference from the target roll gyradius.
The model was configured to operate at a power level
corresponding to a calm water speed of 6 knots at full scale. The
instrumentation used to collect data during the test series included three
accelerometers to record longitudinal, lateral and vertical accelerations,
three rate gyros to monitor roll, pitch and yaw, a motor controller, and a
Qualysis optical tracking system. The Qualysis reflectors were mounted
inside the model’s clear plastic canopy. A 16-channel 16-bit resolution
data acquisition system was set up to sample 12 channels at a rate of
320Hz. Additional details concerning the model, remote control, and
data acquisition system are provided in Simões Ré & Veitch (2007a,b).
MULTIPLE FAN
WIND MACHINE
Copyright 2008 by ASME
 RESULTS

Free-Fall Launches
Two examples of free-fall launches are shown in Figures 3 and 4. Both
examples are for the same nominal weather conditions, corresponding
to a moderate gale with approximately 7m high (full scale) waves with
a nominal steepness of 15.
Figure 3 illustrates a successful launch and Figure 4 shows an
unsuccessful launch. In both figures, two views are illustrated. The top
one shows a plan view of the launch site, including an outline of the
free-fall lifeboat on its ramp prior to launch. Some notional boundaries
used in the measurement of performance are also indicated in this view,
including the target drop point for the lifeboat and a nominal exclusion
zone boundary around the installation. An x-y coordinate system is
Figure 2. Free-fall lifeboat model. superimposed on the plan view. The corresponding profile view is
shown in the bottom part of the figure, with a superimposed x-z
The main objective of the experimental program was to investigate coordinate system. In both views, the path of a single point in the
the influence of weather conditions on the performance of the lifeboat. lifeboat’s reference frame is traced out. The point corresponds to the
Combinations of winds and waves were used to represent five different intersection of the flat stern and keel line, which is the origin of the
weather conditions, from calm up to about a Beaufort 8 equivalent. boat’s coordinate system.
Multiple tests were executed in each of the nominal weather conditions. For the case shown in Figure 3, the x-z view shows that the
The nominal wind and wave conditions corresponding to each of the lifeboat followed a smooth trajectory as it left the ramp and entered the
weather conditions used in the test program are shown in Table 1. water on the down-slope of a wave. The outline of the boat is
Significant wave heights from the Beaufort scale definitions in Table 1 superimposed at several points to illustrate its orientation during the
were used as the target wave heights in the experiments, as shown in launch process. The path dropped smoothly below the mean water
Table 2. In addition, the effects of wave steepness on the lifeboat’s level, resurfaced at the trough and then crested a wave just beyond the
performance were also investigated. All the results presented in this rescue zone. The plan view shows that the free-fall boat hit the target
paper are for 1:15 wave steepness. launch point accurately and then moved away from the platform at a
fairly straight heading during the entire launch and sail-away process,
Table 1. Nominal environmental conditions. which was completed rapidly. There was only minor lateral
(Beaufort) description Mean wind Average wave Signif. wave displacement en route to the rescue zone, and little pitch and roll
[legend code] [m⋅s-1] height [m] height [m] motion.
(BF0) calm water [W1] 0 0 0 Figure 4 illustrates a very different launch, despite the nominally
identical weather and launch conditions. In this case, the lifeboat
(BF5) fresh breeze [W2] 8.7 – 10.8 1.16-1.52 1.86-2.44 entered the water on the up-slope of an incoming wave and surfaced at
(BF6) strong breeze [W3] 11.3 – 13.9 1.95-2.93 3.04-4.57 the crest. The consequences are dramatic. Upon surfacing, it rolled
approximately 90° onto its port side, was pushed back towards the
(BF7) moderate gale [W4] 14.4 – 17.0 3.35-4.88 5.49-7.92 platform, and deviated more than 40° from its intended heading. It was
(BF8) fresh gale [W5] 17.5 – 20.6 5.79-8.53 9.14-13.72 pushed farther back by the next wave, which resulted in a collision with
the platform. It recovered its heading after the collision and made way
to the rescue zone, although with difficulty at each subsequent wave
Table 2. Target test environmental conditions. encounter. Compared to the cases where the boat landed on a down-
Wave Wave Wave Wind Speed slope and a crest, the performance when landing on the up-slope was
Condition height [m] length [m] period [s] [m⋅s-1] very poor. The plan view shows that the lifeboat moved quite
erratically after its launch, ending up well to the port of the evacuation
(BF5) 2.10 42.0 5.19 9.77 station.
(BF6) 3.96 79.2 7.12 12.60
Performance Standards
(BF7) 6.71 134.2 9.27 15.43 The technical performance of the free-fall lifeboat was evaluated
(BF8) 9.14 182.8 10.82 18.11 previously using several performance measures (Simões Ré & Veitch
2007a,b). We consider the performance further below based on criteria
The experimental program also investigated the influence of that affect the occupants during the launch, submergence and sail-away
system configuration factors. All the launches were made from the from the installation. During sail-away phase, the operability of the
same height of 20m full scale. Three different ramp inclinations were craft can be established by comparing its performance to established
used: 25°, 35° and 45°. The results presented in the paper are for 35º. criteria for seakeeping performance. The anticipated effects of the
The model lifeboat was launched bow first into oncoming waves, as lifeboat motions on human performance are also compared to published
well as into bow quartering seas at 20° and 40° off the perpendicular. criteria for motion sickness and injury.
Results in this paper are for launches in the intact platform condition, In brief, the motions and accelerations of the craft can be used to
although a series of tests was done in conditions representing a determine its operability in the context of existing performance
damaged platform. Three different lifeboat loading configurations were standards. The seakeeping criteria can be thought of as a response
investigated, represented by three different positions of the longitudinal threshold that, if exceeded, can have a significant effect on the ability
centre of mass. of a vessel to perform its intended duty. In general, good seakeeping
performance is normally characterized by low levels of accelerations,
together with small heave, pitch, and roll motions. The criteria are

Copyright 2008 by ASME

summarized in terms of limits, namely, vertical acceleration (0.5g), Table 3. Motion sickness operability criteria (Stevens & Parsons 2002).
significant single amplitude pitch (10°), and significant single NATO STANAG US Coast Guard Cutter
amplitude roll (5°) (Olson 1978, Comstock & Keane 1980, Bales & 4154 (U.S. Navy) certification plan
Cieslowski 1981, Kehoe et al. 1983). Seakeeping of small vessels is an Motion Sickness 20% of Crew in 5% in 30 min
area that warrants additional research. Incidence (MSI) 4-hrs exposure
Motion sickness criteria were also used to evaluate the Roll Amplitude 4.0° RMS 8.0° SSA
performance of the lifeboat. Stevens & Parsons (2002) identified Pitch amplitude 1.5° RMS 3.0° SSA
operability criteria in terms of the root mean square or significant single
Vertical Acceleration 0.2g RMS 0.4g SSA
amplitude values of roll and pitch and vertical and lateral accelerations.
Lateral Acceleration 0.1g RMS 0.2g SSA
Table 3 gives the operability criteria. It is understood that each of the
limits is applied independently of the others and that if one of the limits
is exceeded it is assumed that it will result in motion sickness. Table 4. Acceleration limits specified by IMO (1992)
Exceedance of the limits will result in 5% of the lifeboat’s complement Acceleration Acceleration (g)
being motion sick within a 30-minute time interval. Direction Training Emergency
The final criterion used to access the performance of the free-fall
±X 15 18
lifeboat is the one dealing with potential for injury to the people in the
±Y 7 7
lifeboat (IMO 1992). It requires that the accelerations during impact
±Z 7 7
tests in the seat axes be less than those specified in Table 4.

25 25

Installation
Installation

20
Moderate Gale
20 M609_AW4_016
Moderate Gale
15 15
M609EW4_009
10 10
5 5
Y [m]

Y [m]
0 0
-5 -5
Target
Exclusion Zone

-10 Exclusion Zone Target

Boundary

Boundary
-10
-15 Rescue Zone Rescue Zone
Boundary -15
Boundary
-20 -20
-25 -25
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
X [m] X [m]
22.5
20.0
20.0 H1/3= 6.799 m Tavg= 8.019 s
17.5
-1
17.5 Steepness= 14.1 Vwind@10.0= 13.38 ms
15.0 Splash-Wave Phase= 162° - Upslope
15.0 Moderate Gale
M609_EW4_009 12.5
12.5
10.0
10.0
Moderate Gale
7.5
7.5 M609_AW4_016
Z [m]

Z [m]

5.0
5.0

2.5 2.5

0.0 0.0

-2.5 -2.5

-5.0 H1/3= 6.799 m Tavg= 8.019 s -5.0

-1
Steepness= 14.1 Vwind@10.0= 13.38 ms
-7.5 -7.5
Splash-Wave Phase= 213° - Downslope
-10.0 -10.0
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
X [m] X [m]
Figure 3. Plan (top) and elevation (bottom) views of the path taken by a Figure 4. Plan (top) and elevation (bottom) views of the path taken by a
free-fall lifeboat during a launch in moderate gale conditions The boat free-fall lifeboat during a launch in moderate gale conditions. The boat
was launched on the down-slope of an incoming wave. was launched on the up-slope of an incoming wave.

Copyright 2008 by ASME

 A square root sum of square (SRSS) analysis method is then used. the measured values are several times above the criteria. The criterion
The method considers only the magnitude of the acceleration and not for lateral acceleration and pitch is exceeded even for calm water
the duration. However, the limiting values in the SRSS procedure were launches. There are no cases in which the heave acceleration limit is
selected such that injury will not occur regardless of the duration. At all exceeded.
times the following expression should be satisfied: Results for the same tests are plotted against the IMO injury
criterion in Figure 8. There are no cases where the measured results
2 exceed the criterion. Accelerations are presented in the figure for
2 ⎛ ⎞ 2
⎛ gx ⎞ gy
⎟ + ⎛⎜ g z ⎞ different phases of the launch including water entry, resurfacing after
⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ ≤1 (1)
⎜G ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜G ⎟ launch, sail-away, and the maximum acceleration measured between
⎝ x ⎠ G
⎝ y ⎠ ⎝ z ⎠
the water entry and resurfacing phases. The SRSS values for water
entry, resurfacing and sail-away are typically less than 25% of the
where gx, gy, gz are the concurrent accelerations in the x, y and z seat injury criterion value of 1. The maximum values are between 0.5 and 1.
axes and Gx, Gy, Gz are allowable accelerations for the appropriate This is a remarkable result given the observed behavior of the lifeboats
launch condition. during some of the launches.
Further analysis of the acceleration data was performed according Figures 9 to 11 show accelerations measured in the vessel’s
to the criterion presented by Nelson et al. (1987), which emphasized coordinate system plotted against the duration of the measured
that both the magnitude of the acceleration and the duration of the acceleration at 50% of the peak, as defined in Figure 5. The coordinate
impulse must be considered. The duration of the impulse was defined system and corresponding acceleration axes are different than those
as the time width of the impulse at one-half of the peak amplitude, as reported by Nelson et al. (1987), who used seat accelerations with the
illustrated in Figure 5. axes along the occupant’s seat, while we are presenting results along
the vessel’s axes. The difference is mainly due to the fact that Nelson et
al. (1987) reported full scale results while we are presenting model test
results. In Figures 9 to 11, the three operational levels proposed by
Nelson et al. (1987) – training, abandoning and emergency – are shown
with the tolerance limits proposed by Det Norske Veritas (1986), which
look at both the magnitude and the duration of the impulse, rather than
just at magnitude (see Table 5). The criteria for acceleration are based
on published data for human tolerance limits without injuries.
Acceleration

a
10
Seakeeping Criteria
9
a/2
8
Normalized Seakeping Criteria

W1- Accz
t
7 W1 - Roll
W1 - Pitch
W3 - Accz
6
W3 - Roll
W3 - Pitch
5 W4 - Accz
Time
W4 - Roll
4 W4 - Pitch
Figure 5. Definition of impulse duration (after Nelson et al. 1987). W5 - Accz
3 W5 - Roll
Figures 6 to 8 show measured results from a series of free-fall W5 - Pitch
2
launches, normalized by various criteria used to assess seakeeping
qualities, the likelihood of motion sickness, and injury due to 1
accelerations. The results shown cover a range of weather conditions,
from calm water to the equivalent to Beaufort 8. The weather 0
conditions denoted by W1 through W5 in the legends correspond to the Accz ≤ 0.5 g Roll ≤ 5 degrees Pitch ≤ 10 degrees
Beaufort scales from 0 to 8, as described in Table 1. The values
presented in the figures represent the maximum measured values Figure 6. Measured motions compared to seakeeping criteria.
between the water entry and sail-away phases of the launches. Each
symbol represents a single test launch.
For example, Figure 6 shows the heave acceleration at the left of
the plot, roll in the middle, and pitch at right. In each case, the values
shown are normalized so that values greater than 1 represent an
instance where the seakeeping criteria was exceeded. As indicated in
the figure, there were no cases in which the vertical acceleration
criterion was exceeded. However, the roll and pitch limits were
exceeded in many cases, sometimes by several multiples of the
corresponding limits.
Measured results are presented in Figure 7 in a similar format, this
time for motion sickness criteria. Criteria limits on lateral acceleration,
pitch and roll are clearly exceeded in many cases. Again, in some cases,

Copyright 2008 by ASME

 10 11
Training Limit Tolerance Limits
Motion Sickness Criteria 10
9 Accy: 8 g
W1- Accy 9 Duration: 0.1 s Abandon Limit
W1-Accz Accy: 7 g Emergency Limit
8 8 Duration: 0.1-0.2 s Accy: 6 g
W1 - Pitch Duration: 0.2-0.5 s
W1 - Roll 7
Motion Sickness Criteria

Lateral Accelerations Y [g]

7 W3- Accy
W3- Accz 6

6 W3 - Pitch 5
W3 - Roll W1_AccY
4 EW4_016
W4- Accy W2_AccY
5 W4- Accz 3 W3_AccY
W4 - Pitch W4_AccY
2 W5_AccY
4 W4 - Roll
W5- Accy 1
3 W5- Accz
0
W5 - Pitch
W5 - Roll -1 EW4_009
2
-2
1 -3
-4
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Accy ≤ 0.1 g rms Pitch ≤ 1.5o rms
Accz ≤ 0.2 g rms Roll ≤ 4.0o rms Duration at 50% Peak Width [s]

Figure 7. Measured motions compared to motion sickness criteria.

Figure 10. Measured (lateral) accelerations and durations.
2.00
IMO Injury Criteria 10
Injury Criteria - Square Root Sum of Squares

Training Limit
9 Accz: 7 g Abandon Limit Tolerance Limits
1.75 W1 - Water Entry
8 Duration: 0.1 Accz: 6 g
W1 - Resurface Duration: 0.1-0.2 s
W1 - Sailaway 7 Emergency Limit
1.50 W1 - Maximum Accz: 4 g
6 Duration: 0.2-0.5 s
W3 - Water Entry
5
W3 - Resurface
Vertical Acceleration [g]
1.25 W3 - Sailaway 4
W3 - Maximum 3 W1_AccZ
W4 - Water Entry W2_AccZ
W4 - Resurface
2
1.00 W3_AccZ
W4 - Sailaway 1
W4_AccZ
W4 - Maximum 0
W5 - Water Entry
W5_AccZ
0.75 -1
W5 - Resurface
W5 - Sailaway -2
W5 - Maximum EW4_009
0.50 -3
-4
0.25 -5
-6
-7 EW4_016
0.00
-8
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Water Entry Resurfacing Sailaway Maximum
Duration at 50% Peak Width [s]
Figure 8. Measured motions compared to IMO injury criteria.
Figure 11. Measured (vertical) accelerations and durations.
12
Training Limit Tolerance Limits
11 Accx: 10 g
Duration: 0.1 s
Abandon Limit
10 Accx: 9 g
Emergency Limit Table 5. Maximum allowed acceleration levels for free-fall lifeboats
Accx: 8 g
Duration: 0.1-0.2 s Duration: 0.2-0.5 s (Det Norsk Veritas 1986).
9
Longitudinal Acceleration X [g]

Duration seconds
8 Training Abandon Emergency
7 Direction 0.1 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.5
EW4_016 W1_AccX Gx Eyeballs out 10 9 8
6 W2_AccX
W3_AccX Gx Eyeballs in 18 15 13
5 W4_AccX Gy Eyeballs to side 8 7 6
W5_AccX
4 Gz Eyeballs down 7 6 4
3 Gz Eyeballs up 12 10 8
2

1
EW4_009
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50

Duration at 50% Peak Width [s]

Figure 9. Measured (longitudinal) accelerations and durations.

Copyright 2008 by ASME

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The condition of a lifeboat’s occupants, particularly the coxswain, is an
important factor in an evacuation procedure, including the launch, sail-
away and, ultimately, rescue. Model scale tests using free-fall lifeboats
launched into a range of weather conditions have been used to evaluate
the implications of the free-fall lifeboat launch and sail-away process
on human performance. This has been done by comparing measured
motions with a variety of established criteria relating to seakeeping
performance, motion sickness and injury. These types of tests allow us
to estimate the motions that occupants might likely be exposed to under
a variety of launch conditions, including conditions that cannot be
tested using human subjects. This approach can provide valuable
information in consideration of lifeboat design, habitability needs of
occupants and future training requirements.
Injury Criteria
Inherent in free-fall lifeboat deployment is the ensuing impact with the
water surface. The IMO certification process examines whether a
lifeboat can withstand critical impact forces, but gives only secondary
consideration to the true external forces experienced by the occupants.
It is unreasonable to expose human test subjects to these impacts during
the evaluation of lifeboat performance and thus estimations must
suffice. However, it is critical that impact injury criteria be well within
human tolerance limits before training and deployment in emergency
situations can be contemplated.
It is clear from the results of this study that symmetrical entry by
the lifeboat into the water is more of an exception than the rule.
Depending upon the lifeboat orientation and environmental conditions,
peak impact forces may not even occur during impact but at some other
phase of the launch. Applying the Square Root Sum Square (SRSS)
criterion to the measured results revealed that the injury criteria was not
exceeded.
This result was not expected. Given the range of observed launch
outcomes in the experimental campaign, we expect that a human
operator would be at risk of injury due to the motions experienced
during the launch process under some conditions. We anticipated this
would be reflected in the comparison of the measurements with the
injury criterion. That it is not leads us to question the suitability of the
IMO SRSS injury criterion and suggest that a better prediction model
be used.
Injuries may not be due solely to the impact magnitudes
themselves (measurement of the accelerations of solid structures within
the boat), but due to the interface between the occupant and the
structure. The asymmetrical impact orientations may put unexpected
stresses upon the occupant-seat interface or perhaps the restraining
harnesses. Further consideration should also be given to the “fitness” of
the occupant who must undergo these stresses.
Future work should consider other approaches to assessing human
stresses under such conditions. Peak kinematic values may not be as
revealing with respect to injury as the impact impulses, for example,
that the occupant undergoes. That said, vector resolution may not be an
appropriate approach for an injury index. The human operator must be
treated as a wobbly mass with consideration that specific parts of the
anatomy, such as the brain, spine and internal organs are more
susceptible to injury due to impact. The coxswain really should not be
considered as a point mass undergoing the same stresses as a rigid hull
structure simply because s/he is strapped in a fixed seat.
Motion Sickness Criteria
In addition to concern over occupational injury during launches during
training, drills and emergencies, the results presented above suggest
that lifeboat designers and trainers should be concerned about the
implications of motion sickness upon occupant performance.
While there is much debate regarding the mechanisms which
cause motion sickness, it is commonly believed that heave
accelerations and pitch and roll motions are the provocative
disturbances responsible for the incidence of motion sickness.
Secondary are the physical and emotional states of the occupant,
conditions within the craft (e.g., fumes or an oxygen-poor environment)
and the absence of external visual cues (e.g., view of the horizon) that
allow the occupant to orientate himself in space.
Notwithstanding the physical symptoms, it is known that motion
sickness will reduce a person’s cognitive performance. In terms of
lifeboat launches, motion sickness may impact upon a coxswain’s
ability to make critical decisions during the launch, sail-away and
rescue phases. Compounded by the presence of motion-induced
interruptions, launch procedures may be delayed, incorrectly performed
or even omitted.
During the sail-away phase, the motion sickness operability
criteria were applied to the data. In examining the pitch, roll and lateral
and vertical accelerations, a general statement can be made that the
operability criteria were exceeded in almost all cases. Clearly any
opportunities to mitigate the onset or severity of motion sickness must
be addressed. Firstly, anti-motion sickness medications have been
shown to mitigate the severity of motion sickness. In order to be
effective, these medications must be administered a minimum of half
an hour prior to the boarding phase. Thus, storage and subsequent
distribution of these pharmaceuticals must be done during the
mustering stage.
During the sail-away phase, motion sickness will impair the
coxswain’s judgment regarding navigation away from danger.
Providing an outside view, improving communications with those with
an outside view (either within the craft or from an outside source) and
fitting necessary navigational aids can reduce the risk of error in
judgment and performance.
All occupants are exposed to the same motion-rich environment
and it is likely that most on board will become sick. Provision of vomit
containment devices, whether simple or complex, will dramatically
improve the air quality and reduce the stimulation of others to become
sick. Furthermore, minimizing this contamination will allow occupants
to better monitor interior cabin conditions, particularly the build-up of
carbon-based pollutants. Finally, if long-term occupancy of the craft is
necessary, occupants should be made aware of how to minimize the
health-risks due to extended motion sickness symptoms, particularly by
monitoring signs for dehydration and internal bleeding.
Escape, evacuation, survival, recovery and rescue require the
lifeboat occupants to perform several lifeboat-handling operations.
Failure to perform any of these can result in casualties. While it is
important to ensure a proper lifeboat design and a clear insight into the
dynamics of a launch and recovery, it is as important to understand how
the operator and occupants survive throughout.
REFERENCES
Arai, M., Khondoker, M.R.H., Inoue, Y. 1995. Water entry simulation
of free-fall lifeboat: analysis of motion and acceleration. Journal
of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol. 178: 193-201.
Arai, M., Khondoker, M.R.H., Inoue, Y. 1996a. Water entry simulation
of free-fall lifeboat: effects of accelerations on the occupants.
Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan, Vol. 179,
p.205-211.
Arai, M., Khondoker, M.R.H., Inoue, Y. 1996b. Prediction of the
performance of free-fall lifeboat launching from a skid. Proc.
OMAE, Vol.1, Florence, p.249-258.
Arai, M. 1998. Motions of a free-fall lifeboat during water entry. Proc.
OMAE-98-474, Lisbon, 10 p.
Copyright 2008 by ASME
Arai, M. and Okazaki, K. 1999. The double-skid launching as a new
concept for launching free-fall lifeboats. Proc. ISOPE, Vol.4,
Brest, p.456-455.
Arai, M. 2000. A new launching concept for free-fall lifeboats. Marine
Hazards Offshore, London, 11 p.
Bales, N.K. and Cieslowski, D.S. 1981. A guide to generic seakeeping
performance. Naval Engineers Journal, 93(2): 59-66.
Boef, W.J.C. 1992a. Launch and impact of free-fall lifeboats, Part I:
Impact theory. Ocean Engineering, 19(2): 119-138.
Boef, W.J.C. 1992b. Launch and impact of free-fall lifeboats, Part II:
Implementation and applications. Ocean Engineering, 19(2): 139-
159.
Comstock, E. N. and Keane, R. G. 1980. Seakeeping by design. Naval
Engineers Journal, 92(2): 157-179.
Det Norske Veritas. 1986. Rules for Construction and Certification of
Lifeboats. Rule Proposal RP-SD-3-86, Hovik.
Frazer-Nash Consultancy Ltd. 1993. Feasibility of computer simulation
of the launch of free-fall lifeboats. OTH 92-391, Health and Safety
Executive, London, 64 p.
IMO. 1974. International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
(SOLAS), 1974 and subsequent amendments. International
Maritime Organization, London.
IMO 1992. Testing and Evaluation of Life-Saving Appliances,
Resolution A.689(17). International Maritime Organization,
London.
IMO 1997. International life-saving appliance code (LSA Code).
International Maritime Organization. London.
IMO. 2006a. Measures to Prevent Accidents with Lifeboats.
MSC.1/Circ.1206. International Maritime Organization, London.
IMO. 2006b. Early Implementation of Draft SOLAS Regulation
III/19.3.3.4. MSC.1/Circ.1207. International Maritime
Organization, London.
Karppinen, T. 1983. On the effect of wide beam on seakeeping
characteristics of small fishing vessels. Arctic Vessel and Marine
Research Institute, LTR-SH-361.
Kehoe, J. W, Brower, K.S. and Comstock, E. N. 1983. Seakeeping and
combat system performance – The operators’ assessment. Naval
Engineers Journal, 95(3): 256-266.
Khondoker, M.R.H. 1998. Effects of launching parameters on the
performance of a free-fall lifeboat. Naval Engineers Journal, 110(4):
67-73.
Khondoker, M.R.H. 1999a. Evaluation of optimum conditions of
launching of free-fall lifeboat. International Shipbuilding Progress,
46(447):305-318.
Khondoker, M.R.H. 1999b. Numerical investigation of the behavior of
a hook launched free-fall lifeboat during water entry. Proc.
OMAE-99-OFT4243, St. John’s, 17 p.
Khondoker, M.R.H. and Khalil, G.M. 1998. Effect of guide rail on the
motion and acceleration of a free-fall lifeboat. Indian Journal of
Engineering and Material Sciences, 5: 49-54.
Khondoker, M. and Arai, M. 2000. A comparative study of the
behaviour of free-fall lifeboat launching from a skid and from a
hook. Proc. IMechE Part C, Journal of Mechanical Engineering
Science, 214(2): 359-370.
Nelson, J., K. Hirsch, T.J., Magill, J. M., 1987. Measured accelerations
on free-fall lifeboats. Proc. OMAE, Vol. 2: 267-273.
Nelson, J.K., Fallon, D.J., Verhoef, J. and Hirsch, T.J. 1991. Effects of
mass distribution on free-fall lifeboat behavior. Proceedings,
OMAE, Vol, I-B:587-593.
Nelson, J.K. 1992. Relationship of parameters affecting the the
behavior of lifeboats launched by free-fall. Offshore Safety:
Protection of Life and the Environment.
Nelson. J.K. and Khandpur, R. 1992. Evaluation of free-fall lifeboat
launch performance. United States Coast Guard, Merchant Vessel
Inspection Division, Survival Systems Branch, Washington, D.C.
20593 USA, Report No. 3-S-92, 53 p.
Nelson, J.K., Regan, N.B., Khandpur, R., Landsburg, A.C. and Markle,
R.L. 1994. Implementation of free-fall lifeboats on ships. Marine
Technology 31(4): 269-277.
Nelson, J.K., Waugh, P.J., Schwickhardt, A.J. 1996. Injury criteria of
the IMO and the hybrid III dummy as indicators of injury potential
in free-fall lifeboats. Ocean Engineering 23(5): 385-401.
Nelson, J.K. 1996. Free-fall from danger. Safety at Sea International,
No.328, p.27-28.
Olson, S.R. 1978. An evaluation of the seakeeping qualities of naval
combatants. Naval Engineers Journal, 90(1): 23-40.
Simões Ré, A. and Veitch, B. 2007a. A comparison of three types of
evacuation system. To appear, Transactions, Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers, 20 p.
Simões Ré, A. and Veitch, B. 2007b. Experimental investigation of
free-fall lifeboat performance. Proc. ISOPE 2007, Lisbon, 8 p.
Simões Ré, A., Finch, T., Veitch, B., Janes, G., and Sullivan, M. 2003.
Controlled lifeboat deployer. US Patent No. US 2003/0221605.
Stevens, S.C. and Parsons, M.G. 2002. Effects of motion at sea on crew
performance: A survey. Marine Technology, 39(1): 29-47.
Tasaki, R. Ogawa, A. 1990. Numerical simulation and its application on
the falling motion of free-fall lifeboat. Journal of the Society of
Naval Architects of Japan, 167: 147-158.
Tasaki, R., Ogawa, A., Tsukino, Y. 1992. Motion of a free-fall lifeboat
after water entry: an experimental investigation. 29th Motion
Performance Conference, Kanazawa Technical University.
Willis, V.L., Nelson, J.K., Reinhold, T.A., Verhoef, U. 1999.
Anticipated performance of free-fall lifeboat in a high wind
environment. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics. 83(1-3): 479-492.
Wisniewski, Z., Carlomagno, G.M. and Brebbia, C.A. 1999. Computer-
aided prediction of the launching behavior of a free-fall lifeboat.
Computational Methods and Experimental Measurements, p.623-
631.
Copyright 2008 by ASME