Assignment No.

1
Q.1 Explain Fail Safe with Example.

Ans: An Example of fail-safe device in the construction industry can be found in one model
of a self -propelled scissors lift. Loss of hydraulic pressure is a frequent maintenance
problem, and hydraulic pressures in the range of 400 psi to 3000 psi are used to actuate the
lift cylinders of the vehicle. Since this equipment can be used in rough terrain and on slanted
(inclined) surfaces, braking is important. Hydraulic pressure cannot be used to apply the
brakes, because the hydraulic pressure frequently drops or fails to maintain an adequate force
to keep the brakes energized or locked. Instead, the wheel brakes are spring-applied and the
hydraulic pressure is used to release the brakes. In other words, if there is a hydraulic failure,
the service brakes are actuated to stop motion and put the vehicle in a park or emergency
position. The brakes system is designed to be fail-safe for a critical safety function.

It seems like good common sense that if a component, assembly, or system should
experience a failure or malfunction, this should not occur in a situation where the failure itself
could create a high risk. But the fail-safe concept is often forgotten or overlooked in
engineering design. For example an electronic ignition module had an unacceptably high
failure rate, the failure mode often occurred on busy highways, and the vehicles would stall
and come to a stop in the middle of high speed traffic. It simply failed in an unsafe location.
There was no advance warning or any limp-home capability in the vehicle that might make it,
arguably, a safe mode of failure.

A good example of fail-safe design is the run-flat tire. If the tire deflates, either from a
foreign object puncture (blow-out) or form an air-out (slow leak), a moving vehicle night go
out of control, despite some ability to move to the shoulder of the road on the rim of the
wheel. The run-flat tire provides a better ability to control the vehicle and an opportunity to
drive some distance for assistance. A good run flat tire might obviate the need for a spare tire,
particularly if there is some form of wireless communication in the side of the road might
reduce the risks as perceived by the driver of a vehicle with a run-flat tire.

As a general rule, no component or device should fail in a manner that presents or creates a
hazard. Electronic devices should not fail and ignite flammable substances such as fuel or
plastic materials. The steering column should not fail by becoming separated from the
remainder of the steering system, thus permitting the vehicle to go out of control. The throttle
assembly should not get stuck in a full acceleration without a quick means to return it to the
idle position, in the activated or deactivated mode, or be located in a position where a short
circuit and electrical are could trigger an explosion?

In construction, agricultural, and military vehicles a failure should not affect the function of
associated equipment. Neither should trailer, bed-mounted, or connected equipment pose a
risk to the host vehicle if there should be protected by fail-safe design functions.

If there are predictable and likely failures or malfunctions, they should not create any
additional and unnecessary risks. In essence, each subassembly should be designed to fail-

1
safe. It should be examined for its effect on critical safety functions to determine if it might
fail in an unsafe manner or create unnecessary risks. If a safety problem could occur, the
design should be modified so it will be fail-safe. There should be no reliance on others, such
as drivers, to counteract any inherent risk that could flow from the failure of an element of the
vehicle system. Fail-safe is a safety concept that is basic to vehicle design.

Q2) Write short note on universal design

Ans. It is only natural for an engineer to design a product that he feels personally
comfortable with, can operate easily, has a good dimensional fit and believes will be accepted
by the average user. But all the users may not be of same height, weight, age etc. They vary
considerably in terms of human attributes and variable. Instead of using the average male as
design criterion in the automobile industry this was broadened in scope to include 90%, then
95%, then 97.5% of male population. Then females and children were included. This required
designs that could accommodate or be adjustable to fit different users such as manual
adjustment of bench seats front to rear. This user friendly approach is known as universal
design for people. The concept of universal design can be applied for the following

1) Environment friendly universal design: This would include operation at the extreme
temperature on paved and unpaved roadways with ice and snow on the ground and with
predictable loads and speeds

2) Universal design for anticipated use: This would include that vehicle is designed for
intended as well as unintended purposes of the vehicle

3) Universal design for predictable modifications: The basic vehicle design should be
compatible with such modified and alerted use.

Q3): Explain basic approaches for human error control?

Ans: (a) The Blame Game:

Everyone is familiar with statements that some automobiles driver acted in a careless,
inattentive, and reckless manner. Such general options clearly suggest human fault and error.
They server to blame the driver and tend to close any further inquiry as to and error.They
server to blame the driver and tend to close any further inquiry as to causation either of the
behavior or of a possible accident.

Unfortunately, such generalizations may not help in defining appropriate and effective
countermeasures. Something more is needed for adequate human error control and accident
prevention.

The following examples illustrate the blame game and the superficial remedies that could
result: excessive speed for road conditions, failure to decrease speed in a construction zone,

2
following too closely, failure to comply with traffic signs, failure to stop at a red light, failure
to yield to a pedestrian, failure to properly secure load in truck, failure to yield the right-of -
way, and driver made a left turn before the interaction cleared.

(b) Basic approaches for human error analysis:

There have been estimates that human error is involved in 50% to 90% of all accidents.
This may be due to the simplicity in just blaming the person involved in accidents, the limited
forced choices available in some accidents checklists or police report forms that are
completed almost immediately at the scene of the accidents, or the accident investigator’s
basic philosophical approach to human error.

(1) The passive approach: There is a philosophical perspective that fatalistically considers
human error as inevitable in an imperfect world populated by imperfect people. In other
words, there is a belief that errors will happen and there is little that can be done about it.
This can breed a do-nothing, indifferent, or passive reaction to human error.

(2) The behavioral approach: Another approach to human error is to focus on undesirable
behavior and unsafe acts, then attempt to develop safer people, achieve zero defects, and
strives for error-free human performance. An effort could be made to motivate workers, to
encourage them to act responsibly, and to help them develop safer attitudes. This may be
accompanied by special training to improve job skills and hazard recognition, providing more
detailed instruction and procedure, and encouraging closer workplace supervision. It may
include an assessment of the psychological and physiological functions required for better job
performance, job assignment, and personnel selection. In essence, improved behavior can
reduce human error to some degree.

(3) The situational approach: Instead of inaction or blaming the victim, there could be an
attempt to blame the situation in which the accident occurred. The fault might be perceived as
in the work environment, the unique overall circumstances of the accident site, poosible
group interaction, improper workplace management, or the tools provided for the tasks
required. It could include the failure of a product to meet the user requirement under the
circumstances of an accident. This is a fairly broad perspective as to injury and error
causation, but the focus is on the particular situation, accident site, or environment.

3
 (4) The product design approach: The design engineering focus has gradually broadened to
include more user-friendly designs, driver-assist devices, and consideration of human factors
criteria. It now includes some conscious effort to design for case of manufacture and
compatibility with operations in the product life-cycle. This broadened design responsibility
serves to place some personal responsibility on individual design engineers for acts of
commission or omission in regard to predicable human error. In essence, it shifts everything
to the design engineer.

(5) The multifactoral approach: The most sophisticated approach is that of multiple
causation. There is usually more than one cause of an accident or a human error. Anyone of
the causes might provide an opportunity for preventive action. Prevention of only one cause
assumes that it is substantial or necessary in the chain of events.

It avoids the tendency to make quick and simple snap opinions as to causation. It reduces
the bias from preconceived opinions that act as gatekeepers to tailor selectively or accept only
facts that the initial hypothesis. In other words, frequently there is a tendency to believe that a
person is guilty and then gather the facts to prove it. However, full data collection is generally
necessary for effective human error control and injury reduction.