Ergonomic principles for the design of control centres Part 11: Principles for the evaluation of control rooms
Some standard content:
DL/T 575.11--1999
This standard is compiled with reference to the contents of the evaluation of human-machine characteristics of control rooms in the research results of human-machine engineering standardization at home and abroad (see Appendix B).
This series of standards DL/T575 is titled "Guidelines for Human-Machine Engineering Design of Control Centers" and includes 12 sub-standards: DL/T575.1 Guidelines for Human-Machine Engineering Design of Control Centers Part 1: Terms and Definitions; DL/T575.2 Guidelines for Human-Machine Engineering Design of Control Centers Part 2: Field of View and Division of Viewing Area; DL/T575.3 Guidelines for Human-Machine Engineering Design of Control Centers Part 3: Division of Hand Reach and Operation Area; DL/T575.4 Guidelines for Human-Machine Engineering Design of Control Centers Part 4: Dimensions of Confined Spaces; DL/T575.5 Guidelines for Human-Machine Engineering Design of Control Centers Part 5: Design Principles of Control Centers; Part 6: Control Centers Principles of overall layout of the control center; DL/T575.6 Guidelines for ergonomic design of control centers Guidelines for ergonomic design of control centers Part 7: Layout of control rooms; DL/T575.7
DL/T575.8 Guidelines for ergonomic design of control centers Part 8: Layout and size of workstations; Di./T575.9 Guidelines for ergonomic design of control centers DL/T575.10
Part 9: Displays, controllers and interactions; Part 10: Principles of environmental requirements;
Guidelines for ergonomic design of control centers
Guidelines for ergonomic design of control centers Part 11: Evaluation principles for control rooms; DL/T 575.11
DL/T575.12 Guidelines for ergonomic design of control centers Part 12: Visual display terminal (VDT) workstations. Appendix A and Appendix B of this standard are both suggested appendices. This standard was proposed by the former Ministry of Electric Power Industry of the People's Republic of China. This standard is under the jurisdiction of the Power Automation Research Institute of State Grid Corporation of China. The main drafting units of this standard are the Power Automation Research Institute of State Grid Corporation of China, Nanjing Railway Medical College, and China Institute of Standardization and Information Classification and Coding.
The main drafters of this standard are Tong Shizhong, Fu Wenchen, Ma Changshan, Zhang Jinhua, Hua Donghong, and Liu Wei. 1341
1 Scope
Electric Power Industry Standard of the People's Republic of China
Guidelines for the ergonomic design of control centres
Part 11: Principles for the evaluation of control rooms
Ergonomic principles for the design of control centresPart 11:Principles for the evaluation of control roomsDL/T 575. 11 ---1999
This standard specifies the principles for the evaluation of the ergonomic characteristics of various control rooms (dispatching rooms), including the evaluation work procedures, functional allocation, inspection and approval of control room systems, as well as similar determination and evaluation methods for improved design and technical transformation of existing control rooms. This standard applies to the evaluation of human-machine characteristics of various control rooms (or dispatching rooms). This standard applies to newly designed control rooms; it also applies to control rooms of improved design; it can also be used to evaluate existing control rooms: in order to provide a basis for the technical transformation of control rooms. 2 Referenced standards
The provisions contained in the following standards constitute the provisions of this standard through reference in this standard. When this standard is published, the versions shown are valid. All standards will be revised, and parties using this standard should explore the possibility of using the latest versions of the following standards. DL/T575.1-1999 Guidelines for ergonomic design of control center Part 1: Terms and definitions DL/T575.5-1999 Guidelines for ergonomic design of control center Part 5: Principles of control center design 3 Definitions
The definitions adopted in this standard can be found in DL/T575.1-1999. 4 Design process and evaluation of human-machine characteristics
4.1 Ergonomic design process of control room
According to DL./T575.5·1999, the ergonomic design process of control room can be divided into 11 steps and 5 stages 4.1.1 Stage 1 - Clarify the problem bzxZ.net
Step 1: Clarify the purpose and basic requirements.
4.1.2 Stage 2 - Functional design
Step 2: Functional analysis and description.
Step 3: Task analysis.
Step 4: Human-machine function allocation.
Step 5: Job design.
Step 6: Evaluation of functional design.
4.．.3 Phase II Conceptual Design
Step 7: Conceptual design of control center (control room system). Step 8: Evaluation of conceptual design.
Approved by the State Economic and Trade Commission of the People's Republic of China on February 24, 2000 1342
Implemented on July 1, 2000
4.1.4 Phase IV - Detailed Design
Step 9: Detailed design, including the following:
Step 9A: Overall layout of control center:
Step 9B: Layout of control room;
Step 9C: Workstation layout and size:
Step 9D: Design of display and controller;
Step 9E: Environmental design;
Step 9F: Operation and management requirements.
Step 10: Evaluation of detailed design.
4.1.5 Stage 5 - Operation Feedback
Step 11: Collection and accumulation of operation experience. 4.2 Key points for evaluation of human-machine characteristics of control room
DL/T 575.11-1999
The evaluation of control room design includes two aspects: technical aspects and ergonomic aspects. The evaluation of human-machine characteristics of control room and technical aspects are carried out simultaneously (the same evaluation working group). This standard mainly focuses on the evaluation of human-machine characteristics. 4.2.1 Inspection and Approval
Evaluation is a process of combining inspection and approval. Approval should be carried out after inspection, and the inspection results are an important basis for approval. a) Inspection: Inspection is a process of conducting a series of analysis and inspection of the components of the control room system (such as displays, controllers, other facilities, etc.) in accordance with the ergonomic principles, operation and functional requirements. b) Approval: Approval refers to the process of reviewing the inspection results, determining whether the various elements of the system meet the requirements of the system's functions, performance and interfaces, and then analyzing whether the design is conducive to the maximum performance of the operating personnel, and finally approving the evaluation object. The approval can have three results: pass, fail, or pass after design modification. 4.2.2 Basic points of human-machine characteristics evaluation work
There are many contents in the evaluation of human-machine characteristics of the control room. The basic points should be grasped when conducting the evaluation: a) The human-machine system of the control room will eventually affect the operation of the power system. Therefore, when evaluating and modifying the control room system, the focus should be on the system characteristics that are most likely to affect the operating status of the power system; b) When evaluating the human-machine system of the control room, the safety effects of these systems should be evaluated. The results can be qualitative or quantitative. Finally, the impact of the evaluated system on the safety of the power system should be determined; c) Evaluate the reliability of the operation of the human-machine system. Some methods can give quantitative results, but the current evaluation method of the safety effect of the human-machine system is mainly to relatively arrange the order of the evaluated systems or conduct qualitative evaluation. The so-called ranking means that the system design may be found to have defects in human-machine characteristics during the evaluation, but the degree of their impact on system safety is different. Different methods can be used to determine the relative importance of the impact of these defects and rank them. 4.2.3 Basic requirements for evaluation of human-machine characteristics
When evaluating a human-machine system, three requirements should be clearly defined: consistency, understandability and effectiveness. This is also the order of the evaluation work.
4.2.3.1 Consistency
The operator should be able to identify the display content, apply control actions and use the provided equipment for all operating objectives of the entire system. At this time, the information displayed to the operator and the expected response from the operator should be consistent with the person's acceptance and contribution ability and its limits.
4.2.3.2 Understandability
The structure, format and content of the human-machine system dialogue should be meaningful for the exchange of information. The information displayed by the system should be easy to understand, and the operator's control operations on the system should be able to obtain the expected response from the system. 4.2.3.3 Effectiveness
The human-machine interface should be able to help operators improve their operating efficiency in some way. Improved operational efficiency can simplify complex tasks and also make it easier for operators to complete certain difficult tasks. 4.2.4 Contents of human-machine characteristic evaluation
a) Functional analysis;
b) Human-machine function allocation;
c) Task analysis;
d) Operation analysis;
e) Layout of control center;
f) Layout of control room;
g) Layout and size of workstations;
h) Design and layout of control and display systems (including alarm system): 1) Visual display terminal workstation;
j) Communication system;
k) Environment and protection;
1) Staffing and organizational structure;
m) Operating procedures and training outline;
n) Software and display format.
4.2.5 Selection of evaluation time
4.2.5.1 Main evaluation stage
According to 4.1, there is an evaluation procedure after functional design, conceptual design and detailed design. In general, the evaluation of functional design and conceptual design can be combined, that is, only the conceptual design and detailed design are evaluated. a) Evaluation of conceptual design: The purpose of the evaluation of conceptual design is to review whether the design of the control room system is complete and appropriate, and to select the best design scheme. The detailed design can only be carried out after the conceptual design scheme is approved. b) Evaluation of detailed design: The final evaluation of the detailed design is generally carried out after the project is completed and has been in trial operation for a period of time.
4.2.5.2 Evaluation in the design process
The evaluation in the design process refers to the evaluation conducted by the engineering design department to ensure the quality of the design. The evaluation in the design process should consider the following points:
a) Evaluation should be a continuous process that runs through the design and construction of the entire project, that is, the results of each design step described in 4.1 should be evaluated in an appropriate manner, and the evaluation results can be used as the basis for modifying the design to ensure the correctness of the design of each section of the system. The evaluation in the design process should be repeated according to the specific situation and integrated with the design process. b) Daily evaluation work can be carried out within a certain scope (within a design group or several design groups), and some experts can be invited to participate.
c) The evaluation focus of the design process is the evaluation of function allocation and the evaluation of detailed design technical documents: 1) Evaluation of functional design: Correct function allocation is the main goal of control room function design, which can enable operators and systems to maximize their capabilities, and it is the basic basis for the overall design of the control room system in the next step. The evaluation of functional design should involve relevant experts and users to strive for greater objectivity in the evaluation. 2) Evaluation of detailed design technical documents: Its purpose is to check the correctness of technical requirements before the construction process begins, and the evaluation can be carried out separately. Due to the different progress of different parts of the project, the inspection and verification process can be extended for a period of time. 4.2.6 Applicable evaluation procedures and contents
The evaluation procedures and contents given in this standard are suitable for large and complex control rooms (for example: network, provincial dispatching control rooms, large power plants, and central control rooms of nuclear power plants). For other different types of control rooms, choices can be made according to actual conditions. The complexity and scale of the evaluation depend on the object to be evaluated, its workload, the time required and the conclusions expected from the evaluation results. For the evaluation of some minor, small and auxiliary control rooms and the evaluation of improved designs, the evaluation content and procedures can be combined and simplified.
5 General working procedures for evaluation
DL/T 575. 11--1999
The working procedures for inspection and approval should include three stages: preparation, evaluation and judgment. 5.1 Preparation stage
The preparation should include reviewing the original documents, formulating evaluation criteria, forming an evaluation working group and drawing up an evaluation plan. Special attention should be paid to the integrity of the documents and the independence of the evaluation working group. 5.1.1 Formulating evaluation criteria
The formulation of evaluation criteria is to provide a basis for evaluation and judgment. 5.1.2 Review of original documents
The design department should provide all available original documents to the evaluation working group (at the same time, the evaluation working group should actively collect relevant documents), and the evaluation working group shall review them.
5.1.3 Formation of an evaluation working group
5.1.3.1 The members of the working group should not be related to the designers who are engaged in the initial functional allocation or the overall design of the control room system, but there is no need to prevent contact with these designers; on the contrary, they can participate in the discussion and explanation of the design concept. 5.1.3.2 The working group members should include experts in relevant disciplines a) Professional (such as power) engineering;
b) Architectural design and civil engineering;
c) System engineering:
d) Instrument control system;
e) Information and computer systems;
f Human-machine engineering;
g) Operation experience and training.
5.1.3.3 To ensure effective work, the number of working group members should not be too large. If the problem involves a technical scope not included in the evaluation working group, experts outside the working group should be consulted.
5.1.3.4 The working group should complete the review based on the original documents provided and the specified test results. In addition to the working group members, the operator should participate in the test and discussion. The evaluation team should select the participation and method of operators according to the needs: a) In the early design stage, such as the evaluation of human-machine function allocation, work analysis and physical large-scale models, operators can be invited to participate; b) In the detailed design evaluation stage, the participation of operators is indispensable, but it is not advisable to absorb operators who have participated in the evaluation work in the previous stage, because they have participated in the previous design steps in one or more ways. 5.1.3.5 The working group needs the support of the engineering responsible party, as well as the coordination and assistance of management. The engineering responsible party should also be responsible for the evaluation schedule.
5.1.4 Determine the workplace and equipment of the evaluation team. Appropriate offices, meeting rooms and other necessary facilities should be provided for the evaluation team and temporary participants and experts. 5.1.5 Draft an evaluation plan
Develop a detailed schedule for the activities of the evaluation team, and pay special attention to the dependencies between the tasks and the time required to complete each task. The tasks listed in the table should maintain continuity and should be included in the schedule from the preparation stage to the completion of the design review report. Independent tasks should be assigned to the members of the evaluation team and finally included in the entire evaluation process. 5.2 Review phase
The review should be systematic and its working procedures should be documented in a way that is easy to trace. During the review phase, operators should participate in testing and discussion.
5.2.1 Determine the mode and method of review
According to the evaluation content and evaluation criteria, determine the corresponding inspection and verification tools and means, and select appropriate evaluation methods according to 7.2.1.3 and Appendix A. Operators can also be surveyed in the form of questionnaires. 5.2.2 Review process
Verify and test according to the evaluation criteria and relevant original documents, using the tools and methods determined in 5.2.1. Quantitative acceptance criteria should be specified for each test in the plan. 5.2.3 Prepare report documents
5.2.3.1 Record all kinds of information obtained during the review process, and list the requirements of the evaluation criteria. If there are any discrepancies between the two, the potential impact of these differences on the performance of the human-machine system and their severity should be evaluated. The report documents should use a standard format. The prepared form will be used to establish a data management system.
5.2.3.2 Types of forms required
a) Checklist for recording the control room (components) or design features; b) Recording forms for non-ergonomic principles (identifying deficiencies and describing their nature for improvement needs); c) List of control room components; d) Special measurement forms;
e) Recording forms for control methods;
f) Operator questionnaires or surveys;
g) Recording forms for operator responses to special tests (such as the use of simulators); h) Forms that include verification methods or short comments (to ensure tracking quality) 5.2.3.3 Enter the review data (such as task analysis data, control room lists and survey results) into a database and use computers to assist in analysis and management.
5.3 Judgment stage
5.3.1 The non-ergonomic principles identified in the review must be evaluated separately and corrected repeatedly until the actual function meets all the evaluation criteria. If any inadequacies are found during inspection or approval, design modifications (including functional reallocation) or changes to the evaluation criteria should be made. 5.3.2 If any of the following situations occur, the relevant parts should be re-evaluated and re-approved: a) an alternative design is selected;
b) functional requirements or functional allocation are improved;
c) the design is improved;
d) operating procedures are revised;
e) training is improved.
5.3.3 If major defects are found, the evaluation work should be carried out in detail and recorded so that those design concepts that have been considered appropriate in previous evaluations are not adversely affected. 6 Evaluation of functional design
6.1 Verification of functional design
The purpose of the inspection is to verify all functions required for system operation and safety and to verify the integrity of the control room conceptual design. 6.1.1 Working procedures
The working procedures for inspection should include three stages: preparation, review and judgment, see Chapter 5. The original documents reviewed include:
a) contract requirements and requirements of the competent authorities;
b) system description;
c) system technical conditions;
d) task analysis documents:
e) function allocation documents (including human-machine function allocation, remote and local manual control function allocation):1346
f) overall layout diagram of the control center;
g) control room layout diagram;
h) II. work station layout diagram;
i) panel layout diagram;
j) software description;
k) relevant specifications, standards and recognized practices;DL/T 575.11--1999
1) Previous design experience of similar control rooms (including user opinions) and feedback information (useful): m) Analysis report of major (or accidental) events and accidents of previous designs (useful); n) Fault tree, failure model and impact analysis (useful); 0) Safety analysis report.
6.1.2 Basic evaluation criteria for inspection
Inspect all relevant requirements of the conceptual design. Inspection and modification (correction of errors or reallocation) must be repeated until all criteria are met. These requirements include:
a) All functional requirements required for system operation objectives and safety objectives; b) The proposed functional allocation should comply with conventional allocation criteria; c) All requirements for each function (e.g. time limit, accuracy); d) When higher-level functional objectives are reflected in lower-level functions, there should be no conflict in all operating modes; e) Maintenance and repair principles;
f) Practicality and reliability requirements;
g) Effective shift work;
h) Experience feedback from previous designs:
i) Operation and display interface principles;
j) Human-machine engineering requirements from other standards, rules and guidelines: k) The layout of workstations should be suitable for control room personnel to complete tasks. According to the requirements proposed by the functional analysis, the design of operating procedures, displays, controllers and other equipment should be compared.
6.2 Approval of functional design
Whether the functional allocation of the control room is appropriate should be approved to prove that the system can complete all functional standards. Including manual replacement when a special automation function fails; analyzing the characteristics of the hierarchical system over time to ensure that the function is appropriately allocated. 6.2.1 Working procedures
a) The approval working procedures should include three stages: preparation, review and judgment, see Chapter 5. b) The verification is basically based on the original documents provided; for isolated problems, it can also be supplemented by tests performed by operators. c) Event selection criteria should be established to ensure that the selected events are representative. After selecting representative events, determine the functions required for each event and integrate them in chronological order. In order to evaluate the functions assigned to people, events caused by multiple failures should be considered. 6.2.2 Basic criteria for approval
The implementation of each function should be evaluated according to all normal operations and representative events. The basic criteria for approval include: a) the number of functional objectives and workload undertaken by control room staff should not exceed their capabilities; b) the functions assigned to control room staff and local operators should be appropriate, especially they should be required to independently perform urgent tasks or important tasks related to system safety and availability; c) the level of automation (including control, protection, interlocking, display, recording, data management, communication, and different operating modes and mode conversion) must be selected based on human capabilities. For example, people are not able to control very fast, very slow or very complex processes; and are limited by memory. In the case of inaccessibility or long distance, the possibility of remote operation should be tested; d) for each sub-process and its interaction, operating state and state conversion, its operating speed and (or) accuracy, if it is difficult for people to meet the functional requirements, then the automatic control method must be selected; 1317
DL/T 575. 11--1999
e) Sufficient instruments and control equipment should be provided to enable operators to safely handle emergencies that cannot be resolved by automatic functions. 7 Evaluation of control room system
After the conceptual design of the entire control room system is completed, its design should be inspected and approved for rationality. During the inspection, the functional requirements, design requirements and criteria of the control room system should be compared. The approval of the control room system is to evaluate the interaction between the control room, operators, operating procedures and training programs to ensure the safe and reliable operation of the system.
The provisions of this chapter can be used for the evaluation of the control room system conceptual design stage (step 8 of 4.1) and the final evaluation after the control room system is detailed and built (step 10 of 4.1). The content of the review at different stages may be different. 7.1 Inspection of control room system
7.1.1 Working procedures
The working procedures of the inspection should include three stages: preparation, review and judgment. The original documents to be reviewed include:
a) All human-machine interface layouts and drawings (including panel layouts, workstation diagrams, etc.); b) Alarm processing rules and lists;
c) Manual control principles;
d) Display format and procedure list (draft); e) Operating procedures (draft (including emergency handling and operation); {) Training outline (draft);
g) Environmental conditions of the control room;
h) Preliminary evaluation of the control room (when necessary); i Control room system overall design review report: j) Glossary of abbreviations and human-machine interface customary codes used in the control room; k) Computer processing technical requirements (alarm processing, software programs, displays); 1) Staffing and organizational management instructions.
7.1.2 Basic criteria for control room system inspection The control room system should correctly implement all functional requirements and other technical requirements. When formally formulating inspection criteria, two main sources of information should be used: the functional requirements of the control room and the rules and criteria applied when designing the control room. The inspection criteria developed based on these two sources of information should include technical aspects and ergonomic aspects. 7.1.2.1 The design of the control room should meet the following basic criteria: a) The functional technical requirements of the human-machine interface should meet the design criteria and relevant management regulations, standards and guidelines, and should be correctly implemented in the design of controls, displays and other control room equipment and facilities; b) The training outline should correctly reflect the operating procedures so that operators can gain a correct understanding of the functions and operating procedures of the human-machine interface. 7.1.2.2 Examples of specific inspection criteria:
a) The instruments and display devices provided in the control room should express the relevant process parameters; b) The control and display devices should be arranged in a consistent and orderly pattern; c) Faulty instruments and displays should be easy to identify in the event of a fault; d) The view of the display should be unobstructed, and the controller should be easily accessible and its passage should not be obstructed; e) Appropriate temperature, humidity and ventilation control equipment should be provided; f) The relevant displays can provide feedback information to the controller. 7.2 Approval of control room system
Before and during the detailed design of the control room system, the control room system should be approved to ensure that it can achieve the expected performance, and special attention should be paid to the dynamic performance of the control room system over time. 1348
DL/T 575.11---1999
The goal of control room system approval is to evaluate the interaction between the various parts of the control system and determine whether the system can operate safely and reliably in the required manner.
During the approval process, attention should be paid to the evaluation of management aspects, such as shift work, work organization, personnel training, skill improvement and improvement of operating procedures.
7.2.1 Scope and method of approval
7.2.1.1 Scope of approval
The scope of approval is limited to four possible interactions: a) control room and operator;
b) control room and operating procedures;
c) control room and training outline;
e) operator and other personnel inside and outside the control room. 7.2.1.2 Approval Outline
The approval outline is a document that describes the operating conditions suitable for the selected approval method. It should truly reflect the system's conditions, including normal operation, mixed conditions of multiple fault events plus interference, and emergency conditions. The outline must describe the initial conditions, the correct sequence of system responses and applicable symptoms. The expected development path of system operation should be given in order to write the evaluation criteria for approval. In order to minimize design defects, the approval outline should also include the key points of debugging and testing. 7.2.1.3 Selection of Approval Methods
The approval methods for the control room system are:
a) "Round Table" Method: Including the approval outline submitted, step by step, in-depth discussion according to its procedures. Its essence is to make judgments by experts through analysis of technical requirements: b) Rehearsal Method: According to the approval outline, the operator performs the operation of each program for the evaluation team without realizing the real control function. A model should be prepared for the rehearsal. The simplest model is a room with a drawing of the control panel hung on the wall of the room; c) Simulator Method: Under the guidance of the approval outline, the operator performs the real control function on the simulator in front of the evaluation working group: d) Trial operation (on-site commissioning).
The advantages and disadvantages of the four evaluation methods are shown in Table 1. For the selection of specific evaluation methods, please refer to Appendix A. Table 1 Comparison of advantages and disadvantages of four verification methods
Nuclear method
"Round table" method
Rehearsal method
Simulator method
Trial operation
Quick results, low investment
Can obtain results for special functions
Can dynamically integrate various functions
Can analyze the real situation of the whole range
Insufficient thoroughness and appropriateness
Insufficient interaction between functions
Difficult to implement (especially full-range real-time simulation), slow results In the final stage of design: Difficult to modify the design
In actual application, these verification methods can be combined differently according to the scope of verification. For example, when using the "round table" method and rehearsal method for verification, for the situation involving time-varying parameters, a special function simulator or a local function simulator can be used for demonstration. The complexity of the verification method depends on the scale and complexity of the control room. 7.2.2 Working procedures
7.2.2.1 The approved working procedures shall include three stages: preparation, review and judgment. Please refer to Chapter 5 for details. During this stage, operating experience will be particularly important.
In order to facilitate multiple evaluations, multiple performance measurements should be set up. For interrelated performance measurements, the consistency of both qualitative and quantitative methods should be checked to confirm the results of the evaluation. When evaluating the impact of various environmental factors, the combined impact of single factors and multiple factors should be considered. The evaluation criteria should be consistent with all relevant management regulations, standards and guidelines. In any case, if the control room system is modified, the approval work should be carried out again. 7.2.2.2 The facilities required by the evaluation team may include physical models and (or) simulators. Detailed technical requirements for these facilities should be proposed during preparation, including:
a) Representativeness of the test scope:
DL/T 575. 11--1999
b) Structural fidelity (from introduction, sketch to physical model and reference prototype); c) Functional fidelity, including information content (such as the use of random data, simple data and complete data, accurate data) and dynamic processes (from static to dynamic real-time).
7.2.3 Approval criteria for control room systems
In order to evaluate the interaction between the human-machine interface and other components of the control room (control room staffing, operating procedures and training outlines), as well as the human-machine interface itself, corresponding criteria need to be formulated. 7.2.3.1 Development of general evaluation criteria
The evaluation should involve the following specific objectives:
a) Determine whether the system status information, control means, feedback and necessary auxiliary devices provided by the control room can effectively enable the operator to perform his functions and tasks in normal (including shutdown state), abnormal or emergency conditions; b) Identify whether the configuration characteristics of existing control room instruments, controllers, displays, other equipment and materials will be damaged by operator operations.
7.2.3.2 Evaluation of the interaction between the control room and the operator 7.2.3.2.1 General evaluation criteria
a) The functions assigned to the control room staff and automatic devices should have consistency and complete functional sequence. b) The operating principles proposed in the functional requirements should be uniformly applied to all control functions so that subsystems with similar operating characteristics can perform the same operations.
c) The tasks assigned to the control room staff should be within the limits of human capabilities. Control and information processing tasks that require too fast, too slow or complex should not be assigned to operators.
d) Considering the individual differences of people, factors related to the operator's ability limit should have sufficient margin (such as time limit). e) The requirements for the operator's sensitivity in terms of vision, hearing, touch and vibration should be within the specified limits. f) The requirements for the operator's mobility in terms of displacement, extension, operation, physical strength and endurance during operation should be within the limits of human physical tolerance.
g) The mental processing load of the operation should be within the limits of their ability changes. In terms of information processing, perception, information memory endurance (short and long time) and memory capacity, their abilities also change due to different levels of alertness and fatigue. 1) When working in adverse environments such as abnormal temperature, humidity and pressure, abnormal lighting (illuminance, contrast, glare, etc.), abnormal noise and acoustic characteristics in the control room, toxicity and radiation, the operator's workload should be within their work capabilities. i) The tasks assigned to the operator should be appropriate and the workload should not exceed the operator's ability limit. ) In all operating states and their changes, all the information required by the operator to perform his tasks should be easily received. The necessary control equipment should be provided. In the case of manual control, the operator should be provided with sufficient feedback information from the system. k) If a screen display is used, the information should be easy to retrieve. Information on different variables required at the same time should be displayed simultaneously on the same screen display whenever possible. In order to obtain a stable and clear image, the display system should have sufficient display area and resolution. The keyboard and other operating devices should enable the information system to be operated simply and reliably. The display format should comply with recognized standards. The displayed information should be clear and easy to understand. 1) Certain problems caused by the mode of presenting information (such as the control room with the introduction of computers and display screens), especially those related to the operator's visual ability (visual fatigue, reading ability, contrast effects, reflection effects...), should be evaluated. m) The approval should include an evaluation of the improvement of the operator's cognitive characteristics, and the improvement of the operator's cognitive characteristics should be evaluated through appropriate tests. The operator's cognitive activities can be divided into:
1) Detect and observe changes in system status;
2) Diagnose changes and consider corrective measures; 3) Select and execute control actions (according to operating procedures). n) The approval should include the evaluation of the workstation layout and environment, that is, the location of the setting, the installed communication equipment and the environmental characteristics (temperature, noise, lighting), which should enable the operator to work comfortably and effectively. 0) For the evaluation of the human-machine interface, on the one hand, it should be verified that the dialogue and information expression modes (in terms of their internal logic, selected communication mode and 1350
DL/T575.11-1999
efficiency) are related and coordinated with each other; on the other hand, it should be verified that the available information and operating methods of the workstation are appropriate and effective.
P) The staffing of the control room should be consistent with the requirements for safe and reliable operation and be compatible with the operating procedures and training outline. 7.2.3.2.2 Examples of specific evaluation criteria
a) Whether the alarm system (such as light-emitting signs), instruments or displays used as prompts and guides are sufficient to remind the operator to perform the required operations;
b) Whether the controllers are easy to access and the displays are easy to read; c) Whether the signs of instruments and controllers are clear and easy to identify so that the operator can find the required screens and controllers without the help of other documents;
d) Whether the instructions provided can give satisfactory information to enable the operator to determine that a certain process has been completed or a certain working condition has been achieved;
f) If the main prompt information, controllers and indicators are not available, are there other ways to complete the specified process? When the operator takes an action to expect a process parameter to reach a certain value, can the value be clearly read from the corresponding measuring instrument?
g) According to the scale and time resolution, are the scales and ranges of all instruments suitable for the required reading accuracy? h) The evaluation of computerized control space should consider the use of workstations, including the means by which operators obtain information and transmit instructions:
i) The operator support system should be verified to improve the operator's work efficiency and will not produce side effects that may interfere with the operator's decision-making (such as monitoring and high-level thinking activities); j) The human-machine interface system should be able to fully provide the required information from facilities outside the control room. 7.2.3.3 Evaluation of the interaction between the control room and the operating procedures The operating procedures should be compatible with the human-machine interface and the expected system response requirements. It includes all the expected tasks and functional series of the control room. The statement of the operating procedures should be correct, complete and consistent, and easy to interpret. The evaluation criteria are as follows: a) Whether the operations specified in the regulations can be performed in the specified order; b) Whether there are alternative effective ways not included in the regulations being reviewed; c) Whether the actions specified in the regulations can be completed within the specified time; d) Whether the operator can obtain the necessary information required by the regulations from the configured instruments; e) Whether the configured instruments and display devices can provide sufficient residual information for the operator to choose; ) Whether the operator must use information or equipment not specified in the regulations to complete the task; g) Whether the system operating conditions displayed in the control room are consistent with the same operating conditions described in the regulations. h) Whether the operator can find the correct equipment according to the provided markings, abbreviations, symbols and address information; i) Whether the range of the instrument is consistent with the measured value described in the regulations; i) Whether the use of the regulations requires the operator to bear an excessive memory load; k) Whether the emergency operating procedures are easy to distinguish from other procedures (color, appearance, location); 1) Whether the regulations are coordinated with the actual situation in the control room; m) Whether there is an appropriate place to place the regulations in the control room, and whether the bound regulations can be placed flat in the specified position after opening; n) Whether the bound regulations are too large or too heavy, and whether they are convenient to use. 7.2.3.4 Evaluation of the interaction between the control room and the training outline The training outline should be consistent with the requirements of the operating procedures and the human-machine interface, and should provide operators with the skills and knowledge required for safe and reliable operation of the system, including handling unexpected events. The evaluation criteria are as follows: a) Whether the system and all equipment can be operated safely and accurately with the help of existing control and display devices; b) Whether incorrect operation will occur due to lack of understanding of any subsystem or equipment in the system; c) Whether appropriate actions can be taken in response to alarms (such as indications from light-emitting signs); d) Whether information from controllers and displays can be misunderstood; e) Whether controllers and displays can lead to incorrect conclusions: 1351
DL/T 575.11-—1999
f) Whether training can make up for design defects in the control room or procedures. Approval tests for the minimum skills (skill proficiency) required by operators should be specified, and the test results can be fed back to modify the training outline. 7.2.3.5 Evaluation of operator interaction with people inside and outside the control room The suitability of the control room design to complete the collective work and organizational needs of the team should be tested, and special attention should be paid to the organization of the workstations. The evaluation of collective aspects consists of two parts: a) the organizational structure of the individual activities of the control room operators (the tasks assigned to them and the cooperation between them); b) the relationship between the operators and the personnel outside the control room (auxiliary operators, maintenance personnel, management personnel), especially the communication between the operating personnel and other control points and the personnel outside the control room must be convenient, which is the focus of the inspection. The evaluation of the organizational structure should consider the items related to the system organization work, that is, the team organization, work duration, team rotation, training, etc.
Since there is a certain gap between the physical model and the reference prototype and the actual work, the evaluation of the organizational structure should be carried out separately and the evaluation will be made after the supplementary study of the actual work situation is completed. In general, the evaluation team can make a preliminary evaluation of the integrity and rationality of the organizational structure (mainly for safety considerations). Further evaluation of the operating efficiency can be organized by the designer and the user after the trial operation.
8 Inspection and Approval of Improved Design or Technical Modification 8.1 Overview
8.1.1 Advanced Design and Improved Design
The evaluation requirements described in Chapters 4 to 7 above are mainly applicable to the design of a new advanced control room. "Advanced" means that a control room is very different from the previous design (for example, using VDT as the human-machine interface for display and control, as well as alarm display, operation method, control room human-machine interface, comprehensive response to system failure, etc.), and uses advanced technology. Compared with the previous control room, the improved design only makes some appropriate changes. Improved design is to appropriately apply representative, operational, and approved data (design information, operating procedures, training materials, operating experience, and control room review information) to all aspects of the design. In terms of the technical modification of an existing control room, the nature and extent of the modification will determine whether it becomes an improved or advanced control room. Generally speaking, renovation is just a moderate change and should be considered as improvement; however, if a control room is extensively remodeled, such as replacing conventional panel instruments with VIDT on a large scale, an advanced control room can be produced. Inspection and approval of improved designs can be selected and adjusted from the requirements of this standard according to the special requirements and circumstances of the project, and requirements for preparation, review and judgment should be put forward, and appropriate documents should be formed at the beginning of the project. 8.1.2 Degree of improvement
The degree of improvement varies greatly, from a copy of an existing design that requires little inspection and approval, to an improved design that requires selective inspection and approval, to an advanced design that requires full inspection and approval. For improved designs, inspection and approval mainly focuses on the changed parts and their interface with the existing proven design. Improvements can be in the design of the human-machine interface of the control room and/or the structure of the control room staff. 8.1.3 Similar judgments
Repeating previously successful designs has a saving effect in addition to reducing risks, not only reducing the design workload, but also reducing repeated inspections and approvals.
Similarity determination is a kind of argumentation. Designers can make choices within the scope of design, and repeating the existing design is to save design investment. Argumentation includes two aspects: inspection and approval, so it is called "similar determination" rather than inspection or approval. Similarity determination is applicable to systems (or equipment) that have one or more parameters that are the same as those of previously qualified or successfully operating systems (or equipment), and these parameters have been proven to be suitable or better than the specified performance. By comparing these parameters, the differences between the new and old systems (or equipment), that is, the changes in performance, can be determined. This argumentation can be used for new control room systems with the same design (or the same functions and task allocation, automation level, information channels, and maintenance levels) as the original system (with successful operation experience). In order to implement similarity determination argumentation, it is necessary to conduct a system operation review of the original system to show that there are no major operating problems. 8.2 Verification of functional design3 Evaluation of the interaction between the control room and the operating procedures The operating procedures should be compatible with the human-machine interface and the expected system response requirements. It includes all the expected tasks and functional series of the control room. The statements of the operating procedures should be correct, complete and consistent, and easy to explain. The evaluation criteria are as follows: a) Whether the operations specified in the procedures can be performed in the specified order; b) Whether there are alternative effective ways that are not included in the procedures being reviewed; c) Whether the actions specified in the procedures can be completed within the specified time; d) Whether the operator can obtain the necessary information required by the procedures from the configured instruments; e) Whether the configured instruments and display devices can provide sufficient residual information for the operator to choose; ) Whether the operator must use information or equipment not specified in the procedures to complete the task; g) Whether the system operating conditions displayed in the control room are consistent with the same operating conditions described in the procedures. h) Whether the operator can find the correct equipment according to the provided markings, abbreviations, symbols and address information; i) Whether the range of the instrument is consistent with the measured value described in the regulations; i) Whether the use of the regulations requires the operator to bear an excessive memory load; k) Whether the emergency operating procedures are easy to distinguish from other procedures (color, appearance, location); 1) Whether the regulations are coordinated with the actual situation in the control room; m) Whether there is an appropriate place to place the regulations in the control room, and whether the bound regulations can be placed flat in the specified position after opening; n) Whether the bound regulations are too large or too heavy, and whether they are convenient to use. 7.2.3.4 Evaluation of the interaction between the control room and the training outline The training outline should be consistent with the requirements of the operating procedures and the human-machine interface, and should provide operators with the skills and knowledge required for safe and reliable operation of the system, including handling unexpected events. The evaluation criteria are as follows: a) Whether the system and all equipment can be operated safely and accurately with the help of existing control and display devices; b) Whether incorrect operation will occur due to lack of understanding of any subsystem or equipment in the system; c) Whether appropriate actions can be taken in response to alarms (such as indications from light-emitting signs); d) Whether information from controllers and displays can be misunderstood; e) Whether controllers and displays can lead to incorrect conclusions: 1351
DL/T 575.11-—1999
f) Whether training can make up for design defects in the control room or procedures. Approval tests for the minimum skills (skill proficiency) required by operators should be specified, and the test results can be fed back to modify the training outline. 7.2.3.5 Evaluation of operator interaction with people inside and outside the control room The suitability of the control room design to complete the collective work and organizational needs of the team should be tested, and special attention should be paid to the organization of the workstations. The evaluation of collective aspects consists of two parts: a) the organizational structure of the individual activities of the control room operators (the tasks assigned to them and the cooperation between them); b) the relationship between the operators and the personnel outside the control room (auxiliary operators, maintenance personnel, management personnel), especially the communication between the operating personnel and other control points and the personnel outside the control room must be convenient, which is the focus of the inspection. The evaluation of the organizational structure should consider the items related to the system organization work, that is, the team organization, work duration, team rotation, training, etc.
Since there is a certain gap between the physical model and the reference prototype and the actual work, the evaluation of the organizational structure should be carried out separately and the evaluation will be made after the supplementary study of the actual work situation is completed. In general, the evaluation team can make a preliminary evaluation of the integrity and rationality of the organizational structure (mainly for safety considerations). Further evaluation of the operating efficiency can be organized by the designer and the user after the trial operation.
8 Inspection and Approval of Improved Design or Technical Modification 8.1 Overview
8.1.1 Advanced Design and Improved Design
The evaluation requirements described in Chapters 4 to 7 above are mainly applicable to the design of a new advanced control room. "Advanced" means that a control room is very different from the previous design (for example, using VDT as the human-machine interface for display and control, as well as alarm display, operation method, control room human-machine interface, comprehensive response to system failure, etc.), and uses advanced technology. Compared with the previous control room, the improved design only makes some appropriate changes. Improved design is to appropriately apply representative, operational, and approved data (design information, operating procedures, training materials, operating experience, and control room review information) to all aspects of the design. In terms of the technical modification of an existing control room, the nature and extent of the modification will determine whether it becomes an improved or advanced control room. Generally speaking, renovation is just a moderate change and should be considered as improvement; however, if a control room is extensively remodeled, such as replacing conventional panel instruments with VIDT on a large scale, an advanced control room can be produced. Inspection and approval of improved designs can be selected and adjusted from the requirements of this standard according to the special requirements and circumstances of the project, and requirements for preparation, review and judgment should be put forward, and appropriate documents should be formed at the beginning of the project. 8.1.2 Degree of improvement
The degree of improvement varies greatly, from a copy of an existing design that requires little inspection and approval, to an improved design that requires selective inspection and approval, to an advanced design that requires full inspection and approval. For improved designs, inspection and approval mainly focuses on the changed parts and their interface with the existing proven design. Improvements can be in the design of the human-machine interface of the control room and/or the structure of the control room staff. 8.1.3 Similar judgments
Repeating previously successful designs has a saving effect in addition to reducing risks, not only reducing the design workload, but also reducing repeated inspections and approvals.
Similarity determination is a kind of argumentation. Designers can make choices within the scope of design, and repeating the existing design is to save design investment. Argumentation includes two aspects: inspection and approval, so it is called "similar determination" rather than inspection or approval. Similarity determination is applicable to systems (or equipment) that have one or more parameters that are the same as those of previously qualified or successfully operating systems (or equipment), and these parameters have been proven to be suitable or better than the specified performance. By comparing these parameters, the differences between the new and old systems (or equipment), that is, the changes in performance, can be determined. This argumentation can be used for new control room systems with the same design (or the same functions and task allocation, automation level, information channels, and maintenance levels) as the original system (with successful operation experience). In order to implement similarity determination argumentation, it is necessary to conduct a system operation review of the original system to show that there are no major operating problems. 8.2 Verification of functional design3 Evaluation of the interaction between the control room and the operating procedures The operating procedures should be compatible with the human-machine interface and the expected system response requirements. It includes all the expected tasks and functional series of the control room. The statements of the operating procedures should be correct, complete and consistent, and easy to explain. The evaluation criteria are as follows: a) Whether the operations specified in the procedures can be performed in the specified order; b) Whether there are alternative effective ways that are not included in the procedures being reviewed; c) Whether the actions specified in the procedures can be completed within the specified time; d) Whether the operator can obtain the necessary information required by the procedures from the configured instruments; e) Whether the configured instruments and display devices can provide sufficient residual information for the operator to choose; ) Whether the operator must use information or equipment not specified in the procedures to complete the task; g) Whether the system operating conditions displayed in the control room are consistent with the same operating conditions described in the procedures. h) Whether the operator can find the correct equipment according to the provided markings, abbreviations, symbols and address information; i) Whether the range of the instrument is consistent with the measured value described in the regulations; i) Whether the use of the regulations requires the operator to bear an excessive memory load; k) Whether the emergency operating procedures are easy to distinguish from other procedures (color, appearance, location); 1) Whether the regulations are coordinated with the actual situation in the control room; m) Whether there is an appropriate place to place the regulations in the control room, and whether the bound regulations can be placed flat in the specified position after opening; n) Whether the bound regulations are too large or too heavy, and whether they are convenient to use. 7.2.3.4 Evaluation of the interaction between the control room and the training outline The training outline should be consistent with the requirements of the operating procedures and the human-machine interface, and should provide operators with the skills and knowledge required for safe and reliable operation of the system, including handling unexpected events. The evaluation criteria are as follows: a) Whether the system and all equipment can be operated safely and accurately with the help of existing control and display devices; b) Whether incorrect operation will occur due to lack of understanding of any subsystem or equipment in the system; c) Whether appropriate actions can be taken in response to alarms (such as indications from light-emitting signs); d) Whether information from controllers and displays can be misunderstood; e) Whether controllers and displays can lead to incorrect conclusions: 1351
DL/T 575.11-—1999
f) Whether training can make up for design defects in the control room or procedures. Approval tests for the minimum skills (skill proficiency) required by operators should be specified, and the test results can be fed back to modify the training outline. 7.2.3.5 Evaluation of operator interaction with people inside and outside the control room The suitability of the control room design to complete the collective work and organizational needs of the team should be tested, and special attention should be paid to the organization of the workstations. The evaluation of collective aspects consists of two parts: a) the organizational structure of the individual activities of the control room operators (the tasks assigned to them and the cooperation between them); b) the relationship between the operators and the personnel outside the control room (auxiliary operators, maintenance personnel, management personnel), especially the communication between the operating personnel and other control points and the personnel outside the control room must be convenient, which is the focus of the inspection. The evaluation of the organizational structure should consider the items related to the system organization work, that is, the team organization, work duration, team rotation, training, etc.
Since there is a certain gap between the physical model and the reference prototype and the actual work, the evaluation of the organizational structure should be carried out separately and the evaluation will be made after the supplementary study of the actual work situation is completed. In general, the evaluation team can make a preliminary evaluation of the integrity and rationality of the organizational structure (mainly for safety considerations). Further evaluation of the operating efficiency can be organized by the designer and the user after the trial operation.
8 Inspection and Approval of Improved Design or Technical Modification 8.1 Overview
8.1.1 Advanced Design and Improved Design
The evaluation requirements described in Chapters 4 to 7 above are mainly applicable to the design of a new advanced control room. "Advanced" means that a control room is very different from the previous design (for example, using VDT as the human-machine interface for display and control, as well as alarm display, operation method, control room human-machine interface, comprehensive response to system failure, etc.), and uses advanced technology. Compared with the previous control room, the improved design only makes some appropriate changes. Improved design is to appropriately apply representative, operational, and approved data (design information, operating procedures, training materials, operating experience, and control room review information) to all aspects of the design. In terms of the technical modification of an existing control room, the nature and extent of the modification will determine whether it becomes an improved or advanced control room. Generally speaking, renovation is just a moderate change and should be considered as improvement; however, if a control room is extensively remodeled, such as replacing conventional panel instruments with VIDT on a large scale, an advanced control room can be produced. Inspection and approval of improved designs can be selected and adjusted from the requirements of this standard according to the special requirements and circumstances of the project, and requirements for preparation, review and judgment should be put forward, and appropriate documents should be formed at the beginning of the project. 8.1.2 Degree of improvement
The degree of improvement varies greatly, from a copy of an existing design that r
Tip: This standard content only shows part of the intercepted content of the complete standard. If you need the complete standard, please go to the top to download the complete standard document for free.