G3RD-CT-2002-00809

A RATIONAL APPROACH FOR REDUCTION OF MOTION SICKNESS & IMPROVEMENT OF PASSENGER COMFORT & SAFETY IN SEA TRANSPORTATION

Final Publishable Report

A RATIONAL APPROACH FOR REDUCTION OF MOTION SICKNESS & IMPROVEMENT OF PASSENGER COMFORT AND SAFETY IN SEA TRANSPORTATION (COMPASS) G3RD-CT-2002-00809

AUTHOR/S:

Osman Turan

ABASTRACT:

Passenger well being, comfort and safety are critical for the earning capacity of the passenger ships whether they are conventional ships or advanced marine vehicles. Human comfort on board such vessels is a complex problem which involves human physiology and psychology, ship operation and design. An EU funded project COMPASS ‘ A Rational Approach for Reduction of Motion Sickness & Improvement of Passenger Comfort and Safety in Sea Transportation’ aims to identify the relation between economics and passenger comfort and introduce a more suitable and realistic approach to deal with motion sickness and passenger comfort in sea transportation. COMPASS project investigated mutiple aspects of comfort through laboratory experiments, market surveys and full scale sea trials. Key new findings on the nature of comfort, sea sickness, performance of activities and loss of balance on moving ships, are presented here.

DISTRIBUTION:

TITLE:

CIRCULATION:

COMPASS Final Publishable Report PERFORMING ORGANISATION

DOCUMENT CLASSIFICATION

CONFIDENTIAL

INTERNAL CLASSIFICATION CODE:

(Void) SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES:

REV.

DATE

0 1 2

27/02/2006

DESCRIPTION

PAGES

CHECKED

APPROVED

13

2

COMPASS Project

G3RD-CT-2002-00809

COMPASS PROJECT A Rational Approach for Reduction of Motion Sickness & Improvement of Passenger Comfort and Safety in Sea Transportation’ Summary Passenger well being, comfort and safety are critical for the earning capacity of the passenger ships whether they are conventional ships or advanced marine vehicles. Human comfort on board such vessels is a complex problem which involves human physiology and psychology, ship operation and design. An EU funded project COMPASS ‘ A Rational Approach for Reduction of Motion Sickness & Improvement of Passenger Comfort and Safety in Sea Transportation’ aims to identify the relation between economics and passenger comfort and introduce a more suitable and realistic approach to deal with motion sickness and passenger comfort in sea transportation. COMPASS project investigated mutiple aspects of comfort through laboratory experiments, market surveys and full scale sea trials. Key new findings on the nature of comfort, sea sickness, performance of activities and loss of balance on moving ships, are presented here. COMPASS PROJECT: COMPASS, ‘A Rational Approach for Reduction of Motion Sickness & Improvement of Passenger Comfort and Safety in Sea Transportation’, deals with the motion sickness and passenger comfort at fundamental level. This is the most comprehensive research effort that has been coordinated in motion sickness and passenger comfort in passenger ship transportation. It started in September 2002 and finished in November 2005. The project COMPASS is funded by European Commission – DG Research (Contract No G3RD-CT2002-00809) and coordinated by CETENA (Italian Ship Research Centre). The main objective of the COMPASS project is to develop a new motion sickness prediction model(s) and realistic standards for Motion Sickness and Passenger Comfort dedicated to sea-transportation with an ultimate technological aim of improving the safety of passenger and crew, reliability and operability efficiency and competitiveness of passenger and cruise vessels built /operated by the European shipping industry. Within the aim of the project one of the sub-objectives is to develop integrated mathematical modelling as motion sickness prediction tools. These tools allow the consortium to achieve the other sub-objectives: • •

•

Development of new realistic motion sickness standards (in guidelines form) which will reflect the modern day transportation needs and trends. Development of design methodology from motion sickness and passenger comfort point of view. The design methodology, prepared using the developed standards will provide the Designers and builders with the cutting edge technological know-how to design and build the passenger ships and high speed craft while providing the right information for designers and manufacturers to improve the efficiency of their vessels and equipments. The output of this objective will certainly improve the designs of passenger vessels and high speed craft, performance at sea and hence the operability of the vessels in larger weather and geographical envelopes. Develop the operational methodology/guidelines based on the new motion sickness standards as well as an interactive tool to assist the captain to observe the motion sickness on the various parts of the board and take appropriate action in time. This will improve the reliability and the efficiency of the passenger transport services

COMPASS project brought together 11 expert partners from 7 different EU countries. Three of these partners are ship operators operating different types of vessels in different geographical areas of Europe (Viking Line (Finland), Grimaldi Group(Italy) and Blue Star ferries(Greece)). There is one ship yard partner (Navantia, Spain), while one designer partner specialises on new advanced fast vehicle design (SES Europe, Norway). There are two research/consultancy organisations, (TNO (The Netherlands) and CETENA (Italy)). There are three educational establishments (SSRC of Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde (United Kindom), National Technical University of Athens ( Greece) and The Institute of Sound and Vibration Research of Southampton University ( United Kingdom)). The final partner is one classification society (Germanischer Lloyd (Germany)) providing the consortium with an expertise on the rule development and standards. The project is organized into seven technical workpackages. WP 1 is on ‘Identification of the relation between Economics & Comfort’. The relation on between the weather conditions, ship motions, passenger comfort and the customer demand is established for various Final Publishable Report

3

COMPASS Project

G3RD-CT-2002-00809

routes in Europe while reasons for seasonal demands as well as choice of transportation are identified. The study includes conventional cruise and Ropax vessels and High-Speed craft in various geographical regions in Europe. WP 2 is on ‘Investigation and study of the Human Response to motions and development of questionnaires’. The existing medical and technical information regarding the response/sensitivity of human systems to motions and other effects are collected and reviewed in order to identify all the human parameters that are important for shaping the definition of human comfort and motion sickness of passengers and crew. This information is used in the development of questionnaires being capable of capturing the effects of real ship motions and ship systems (other effects) to human, for use in the full-scale trials. WP 3 is dedicated to ‘ Full Scale Trials’. In this WP full scale trials are performed onboard various cruise and conventional Ropax vessels and high-speed vessels in various sizes to record environmental conditions, ship motions as well as the passengers and crew response by using the specially developed questionnaires and instrumentation. WP 4 is on ‘Laboratory tests with Motion Simulators’ Lab trials are providing the unique opportunity to observe in human behaviour and produce additional information on the relation between motion-comfort that may have not be captured throughout the full scale trials. Furthermore, human behaviour in lab environment can be observed in detail and accurately by using special effects or isolating certain parameters. Effect of roll, sway surge type accelerations on human comfort together with sitting and standing combinations are examined in isolation as well as in combined form. The experimental studies extended the current knowledge of the fundamental relationships between low-frequency motions and discomfort, developments of symptoms of motion sickness and interference with postural stability and this will be for the extension of the current frequency weighting models. WP 5 is on ‘Tool and standards Development’. A mathematical model, which is relating the ship motion to human comfort is developed. The mathematical model includes all vertical, horizontal and rotational accelerations by using the data and the findings of full scale trials as well as lab studies. Rational standards are to be given for human comfort, typically consisting of motion limits resulting in pleasant, acceptable and unacceptable passenger comfort. WP 6 is on ‘Motion Sickness model integration into ship’s systems during the Operation of the vessel’. The developed model, together with the prescribed equipment, are implemented as an integrated tool to be used onboard vessels, during their operation, for the prediction and evaluation of comfort. This way corrective action, such as alteration of heading, speed etc, can be taken in time to avoid unacceptable levels of comfort. The installed, motion sickness model is validated and calibrated by carrying out further demonstrative trials on various vessels. In addition this tool can be used to exploit the vessel’s control systems in a more rational and efficient way. By integrating the passenger comfort model into the vessel’s control systems (fin stabilizers etc) passenger comfort is directly utilised rather than motions as input to the system. WP 7 is on ‘Sickness model integration with hydrodynamic tools for the development of design and operation guidelines’. Motion Sickness software is integrated with the hydrodynamic tools to have a complete system, and can be used in combination with a hydrodynamic tool capable of predicting ship loads and motions. The integrated model can be used during the design stage of ships either during the hull design or during the location of accommodation areas in the superstructure by providing the level of passenger comfort of various configurations. Based on the results generated by COMPASS project guidelines/ methodology are also developed for design and operation of passenger ships in relation to passenger comfort

Final Publishable Report

4

COMPASS Project

G3RD-CT-2002-00809

SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT FINDINGS 1

INTRODUCTION TO COMFORT

One of the fastest growing sectors of the marine industry is passenger ships. Such vessels fulfill a variety of transportation needs, from commercial to commuting and recreation, usually in direct competition with other transport modes. As more passenger ships become available, expanding into new roles with increased size, and more people choose this mode of travel over air, road or rail alternatives, consumers will become increasingly selective about how they reconcile the often conflicting objectives of time, money and comfort. Passengers’ acceptance of a vessel depends on a variety of factors relating to comfort, convenience and price. Apart from passengers, the crew’s performance is also influenced by a vessel’s design, layout and seakeeping qualities. Factors at issue are such as ship motions, as well as, ambient environmental conditions such as excessive vibration and noise, extreme temperatures and poor illumination. For the crew, this negative impact may be realised as poor performance, physical and mental fatigue, or an increase in human errors. In recent years several classification societies have introduced class notations indicating comfort levels of vessels for example COMF and COMF+ from ABS and PC, PCAC certificates of Lloyds. These class notations provide standards with comprehensive criteria and assessment methodologies with regards to passenger comfort. Objective assessment criteria and measurement methodologies for comfort based on current research and standards relating to human psychological and physiological responses are thus available. The framework behind these assessment procedures provides a good summary of the existing methodologies by which comfort levels of a vessel are assessed. Questions are on whether those existing knowledge and procedures are enough to provide the safety and comfort in such competitive conditions.

2

THE NATURE OF COMFORT

Comfort in general is a subjective human response. Comfort of passengers has a significant impact on the operating revenues in the short term and market shares in the long term. From a survey of around 500 water transport users it was found that a majority (45%) of users choose water transport because of the convenience offered, however 32% of passengers thought they would travel more if the journey was more comfortable (Herrador et. al., 2003). In the COMPASS project, an attempt is made to define and quantify comfort. Although specific aspects of comfort like thermal comfort, vibration discomfort is a well-researched field, comfort as a composite response to an array of stimuli has received less attention. Methods of measuring comfort as a whole are therefore highlighted. The experience of the operators in dealing with comfort shows how passenger comfort is dealt with in practice. Comfort in transportation can be assumed to depend on social, situational and physical factors. The social factors is determined by the social environment (for example travel companions, co-passengers); situational factors encompass the circumstances in which the journey is being made (business or pleasure) while physical factors are a quantifiable property of the transport system. It is convenient to categorize the physical factors as shown in Table 1[15]. The classification is based on the speed with which the physical inputs change.

DYNAMIC FACTORS (rapidly varying) • Vessel Motions • Speed

AMBIENT FACTORS (slowly varying or fixed) • Temperature • Humidity • Indoor Air Quality • Noise

SPATIAL/ERGONOMIC FACTORS (constant parameters of the vehicle) • Seating arrangements (leg room) • Seat characteristics (shape, size, firmness) • Cabin interior decorations

Table 1: Classification of physical inputs affecting comfort.

Final Publishable Report

5

COMPASS Project

G3RD-CT-2002-00809

An approximate idea about the relative importance attached to the above factors by the passengers was obtained from passenger surveys on England-France RORO ferries. The pattern presented in Figure 1 shows that physical factors are the most important determinants of comfort. This statistics is based on passenger response to the query about what they consider the most essential components for comfort. The percentages may be taken as weightings for the various comfort inputs. It needs to be noted that the figure below ignores situational factors. The results indicate that for conventional ferries, the ambient and ergonomic factors are probably the most important determinants for passenger comfort.

Figure 1: Relative importance of comfort inputs to users of conventional ferries (data obtained from EnglandFrance ferry routes comprising 255 responses). Ergonomic factors implied good seats and space, Dynamic factors imply ship motion. Based on the surveys carried out on HSC, cruise and conventional ferries, passengers are generally willing to pay some extra cost for better comfort when travelling at sea and an average of 40 % stated travel more often if the vessel were faster and with a better seakeeping performance.

No doubts about using the service again [%] .

100

80

60

40

20

0 1

Comfort Rating

.

Very Comfortable

2

Comfortable

3

Neutral

4

Uncomfortable

5

Very Uncomfortable

Figure 2: Comfort rating vs. the intention of passengers to use ship again as a transport mean In Figure 2 the effect of the comfort on the customer’s preference of marine transport can be clearly observed.

Final Publishable Report

6

COMPASS Project

G3RD-CT-2002-00809

3 LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS Laboratory experiments within the COMPASS project focussed on postural stability of standing subjects, ride comfort of seated subjects and motion sickness response of subjects in response to horizontal accelerations. 3.1 Effect of Vibration on Stability while Standing Twelve male standing subjects were exposed to vibrations of frequencies ranging from 0.125-2.0 Hz. Postural disturbance (as indicated by centre-of-pressure displacement) and the incidence of loss of balance increased with magnitude of acceleration as expected (Figures 3 and 4). Oscillation in the fore-and-aft direction led more disturbance and loss of balance rather than lateral (side to side oscillation). The results also showed that loss of balance and the probability of losing balance that peaked at a frequency about 0.5 Hz. This trend was consistent with the subjective probability of losing balance as reported by subjects.

Figure 3: Percentage of subjects losing balance due to fore-aft oscillation

Figure 4: Percentage of subjects losing balance due to lateral oscillation

3.3 Discomfort due to Rotational and Horizontal oscillations A series of experiments has been conducted to investigate the motion sickness caused by pure roll oscillation, pure lateral oscillation and combined lateral and roll oscillation. The laboratory studies involved 860 subjects and 56 motion conditions. It was observed that the current frequency weighting for vertical oscillation as given by the ISO-2631 (i.e. Wf) underestimated the effect of lateral oscillation at frequencies less than 0.25 Hz. A frequency weighting for lateral acceleration (Wfy) is derived instead (Figure 6). Exposure to roll motion per se caused little illness at frequencies in the range 0.025 to 0.4 Hz. When combined with lateral motion, roll motion increased motion sickness, but not statistically significant at all frequencies. 10 Wfy

Weighting

1

Wf

0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

Frequency [Hz]

Figure 5: Motion sickness frequency weighting for lateral and vertical oscillations. In another series of simulator trials, 28 subjects were exposed to low-frequency sway and heave and a small amplitude of pitch motion, singly and in combination. The experiments investigated perceived comfort as function of motion magnitude, as well as the interference of ship motion with passenger activities (eating, drinking, reading, arithmetic, walking and throwing darts). Objective measures of performance and subjective ratings of comfort and required effort for tasks were recorded.

Final Publishable Report

7

COMPASS Project

Fairly uncomfortable

G3RD-CT-2002-00809

Fairly uncomfortable

Figure 6: Left: subjective ratings of required effort (discomfort) while performing various tasks as a function of sway acceleration (0=not at all, 4=extreme). Right: Pooled discomfort ratings (excluding motion sickness data) for all tasks. The solid line indicates the regression line. A rating of 2 (“fairly uncomfortable”) is considered the tentative tolerance limit. The results showed that sway motion affected comfort more than heave motion, and that the effects of both motion components added linearly. Performance on motor tasks (writing, eating, drinking and throwing darts) was impaired during motion, while that on cognitive tasks (reading and arithmetic), was hardly affected. For all activities, however, perceived effort increased considerably with increasing motion amplitude, even though the performance itself did not always suffer from the motion. Based on the subjective ratings, it is concluded that the magnitude of sway acceleration persons can be exposed to while performing normal 2 activities comfortably, is 0.12 m/s RMS. 4 SURVEYS ON SHIPS Responses of passengers were collected from 4 ships comprising of two conventional large mono-hull cruise-ferry ships, and two smaller fast catamarans. This study covered 33 trips, yielding a total of 3150 responses. With questionnaires subjective responses were measured regarding motion sickness, sitting discomfort, loss of balance while standing or walking, fatigue, satisfaction and joy, along with passenger characteristics like age, gender, and history of motion sickness. Ships motions, local vibrations and internal environment parameters (noise, temperature etc) were also recorded during the surveys. A statistical analysis was carried out to asses the discomfort entities, effect of passenger characteristics and ship motions and vibrations.

Figure 7.a: Cruiser Ferry, Viking Line

Final Publishable Report

Figure 7.b: Catamaran HSC , Blue Star Ferries

8

COMPASS Project

G3RD-CT-2002-00809

Figure 7.c: Fast Cruiser Ferry, Grimaldi

4.1 Discomfort entities Seasickness was the most discomfort causing factor, followed by noise, vibration, unsteadiness, and air quality. Symptoms associated with sea-sickness like headache, dizziness, stomach awareness, nausea, and vomiting, showed a high correlation with an overall illness rating reported by passengers. Vomiting and nausea were the dominant factors contributing to this, followed by dizziness, stomach awareness and headaches. It was observed that passengers were most fatigued when resting was their main activity, when they consumed alcohol during the voyage, felt nauseated or sick, were sitting uncomfortable, or felt unstable. All these relationships are intuitive. Sitting discomfort was one of the least important factors contributing to discomfort in general. Moreover, the variability in discomfort caused by sitting seems to be explained largely by other factors, such as gender, the type of activity done most of the time, alcohol consumption, and feeling sick or fatigued. 4.2 Variation due to passenger characteristics There were three effects due to personal factors affecting the illness ratings in large extent. Here, the illness rating (IR) was given on a 0 to 3 rating scale, 0 representing no problems, and 3 feeling absolutely dreadful. The factors affecting this illness rating were age, gender, and whether or not passengers had felt sick before on previous sea voyages. Because virtually no data were gathered of passengers under the age of 5, and it is known that young children below a certain age do not get sick from motion (Reason and Brand, 1975), we restricted the characterisation of these effects to ages above 5. Then, it appeared that there was a striking close double exponential relationship between illness ratings and age according

  y−a  y − a  IR = Aexp −  − exp −  , b  c     

(1)

with A a proportionality factor, y the age in years, a = 5 the age below which no sickness is rated, b a time constant describing the decay of illness at higher ages, and c a time constant describing the increase of illness with age at childhood. Roughly speaking, we observed that only two parameters (A and c in Eq. 1) differed between the four different groups under consideration, i.e., females sick before, males sick before, females not sick before, and males not sick before. Figure 8 shows the hypothetical curves for these groups, as could be fit to our data. From this figure, it can be seen that passengers who felt sick before, felt sick about twice as bad on the current voyages as those who did not feel sick before. This figure furthermore shows that female illness ratings peak at a lower age than male ratings do (about 11 versus 21 years). The same parameter (c) describing this effect, also accounted for lower male illness ratings as compared to the female ratings over the entire range of ages. More details are presented in a paper submitted for publication elsewhere (Bos et al., 2005).

Final Publishable Report

9

COMPASS Project

G3RD-CT-2002-00809

Figure. 8: Assumed sickness susceptibility depending on sickness history (solid lines: sick before; dashed lines: not sick before), gender (red lines: females; blue lines: males), and age (years). 5 RELATION OF SEA SICKNESS WITH SHIP MOTIONS The effect of motion sickness was modelled using an ISO-2631 type of equation, where COMPASS project found the optimum predictive value given by IR(MSDV)=K(age, gender, sickness history)*MSDV

(2)

MSDV (av , t ) = av t

(3)

with and

(

)

av = k h2 a wx2 + a 2wy + a 2wz

(4)

with IR again the illness rating on a 0-3 scale, K, an overall gain depending on passenger characteristics as quantified above, and MSDV the motion sickness dose value. The variable av, is the multi-axis equivalent frequency weighted acceleration, and t the exposure time in seconds. The coefficient kh weights the horizontal acceleration vector-sum with the vertical component. Application of equations 2-4 to the observed illness ratings showed that the observed illness ratings correlated linearly with the motion sickness dose values (figure 9). Figure 10 shows averages for each journey. Inclusion of horizontal acceleration improved the correlation coefficient compared to use of only vertical acceleration as implemented in the ISO 2631 standard, and this is in agreement with the lab trials realised in the COMPASS project. It was found that inclusion of rotational acceleration or cross-terms of acceleration with roll-displacements decreases correlation, which is opposite to the lab trial data, where roll did contribute to illness. Mean Illness Rating (predicted)

Illness Rating (measured)

0.2 IR = 0.0053 *MSDV R2 = 0.6069

0.16 0.12 0.08 0.04 0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Motion Dose Value (MSDV)

Figure 9: Variation of illness rating with motion dose value. Final Publishable Report

0.16 0.12 0.08 0.04 0 0

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

Mean Illness Rating(measured)

Figure 10: Predicted vs. measured illness rating (averaged over journeys).

10

COMPASS Project

G3RD-CT-2002-00809

6 APPLICATION AND VERIFICATION OF MODEL The motion sickness model developed through COMPASS predicts illness ratings considering both horizontal and lateral accelerations. Conventionally it is assumed that motion sickness depends only on vertical acceleration. Numerical simulation of motions were carried out for a novel high speed ferry design. The difference in predicted mean illness ratings from the conventional ISO formula and the one derived in COMPASS for a given state and different direction is shown in Figure 11. It is seen that the two formula give nearly identical results except when ship the heading is between 120 and 70 degrees i.e. close to beam seas. Numerical simulations show that the effect of horizontal acceleration is not significant in milder sea conditions (for example Hs=1.5 m). Comfort predictions can also be made for a particular demographic mix of passengers using Eqn 1. 0 340 330

350 0.4

10

20 30

0.35

320

40

0.3 0.25 0.2

310 300

50 60

0.15 0.1 0.05 0

290 280 270

70 80 90

260

100

250

110 120

240 230 220

130 140 210

150 200

190

170

160

180

Hs=3 m , 35 knots

mean IR (Griffin, 1987) mean IR - COMPASS model

Figure 11: Mean illness rating on a simulated 3 hour journey for a sea with significant wave height of 3m with mean period of 8.4 seconds. The ship has 220m length with service speed of 30 knots.

Menu

Data Tables (numerical values) Dots change colour with illness rating

Station Location and Des cription

Direct Output Data Channels (eg Temperature)

Time

Display Window

Illness Rating MSI Motion Induced Interupptions

Figure 12: The GUI of the SHIPComf Model of SSRC

Final Publishable Report

11

COMPASS Project

G3RD-CT-2002-00809

The integrated model as shown in figure 12 was tested on board of various vessels and provided very satisfactory results ( Figure 13)

Mean Adjested Illness Rating

0.200 Susceptibility Adjusted Ilness Rating(measured)

0.150

Predicted Suceptibility Adjusted Illness Rating

0.100

0.050

0.000 1

2

3

4

5

6

Journey Figure 13: Demonsrator trial; Measured vs. Predicted illness rating adjusted by susceptibility As demonstrated the model and the integrated system comfort system provide a very good platform for onboard prediction and observation as well as decision making about what to do. Furthermore, the integrated system can also assist the designers during the design process of any passenger vessels. During the design process COMPASS study provided • • •

a comfort-oriented ship design methodology a methodology for route planning aimed at comfort design and operational guidelines for passenger comfort

Some of the finding can be listed as: • Small changes to the hull shape do not affect the passenger comfort but form changes as well as hull configuration (mono or multi-hull) play important role • The acceleration can change as much as 100% between aft and forwad part of the vessel. The effect of wave direction is also very important. It is suggested that most forward of the monohull vessels should be avoided for accommodation and public spaces. • Study demonstrated that ride control systems play important role for reducing the discomfort and it is advisable to introduce them on HSC. • Compass developed weather routing methodology and should be used during the design and before any journey sailing for advise and prediction.

CONCLUSION Comfort of passengers is multidimensional and is affected by multiple inputs. The market surveys, laboratory studies and database of passenger response from sea journeys performed in the research project provides useful models and some fundamental results for assessing comfort due to physical parameters of the vessel and voyage. The psychological determinants of comfort (the social and situational factors) are difficult to measure and quantify. Further research is needed to understand these aspects too. However. COMPASS identified and quantified some important factor on passenger comfort while developed tools which can assist the designers and operators to improve the comfort and the profitability of the vessel.

Final Publishable Report

12

COMPASS Project

G3RD-CT-2002-00809

References • • • • •

Bos JE, Damala D, Lewis C, Ganguly A, and Turan O. (2005) “Susceptibility to seasickness”, Ergonomics, submitted. ISO. (1997) Mechanical vibration and shock - Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration - Part 1: General requirements. International Organization for Standardization ISO 2631-1:1997(E). Herradior J. et. al. (2003) Review Of The Current Market On Relation Between Comfort And Economics COMPASS Report : TEC/11/001/005/06 (confidential) Lawther, A. and Griffin, M. J. (1987) Prediction of the Incidence of Motion Sickness from the Magnitude, Frequency, and Duration of Vertical Oscillation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 82, 957-966. Reason JT, and Brand JJ. (1975) Motion sickness. Acad. Press, London.

Project Coordinator: Carlo Camisetti CETENA S.p.A. - Italian Ship Research Centre Via Ippolito d'Aste, 5 I-16121 Genova - Italy Tel: +39 010 5995 483 Fax: +39 010 5995 790 email: [email protected] Technical Coordinator: Prof. Osman Turan Ship Stability Research Centre 48 North Portland Street - Glasgow GI IXN, UK Phone: +44 141 548 3211 Fax: +44 141 548 4784 email: [email protected]

Day by Day Coordinator: Alessandro Pescetto, Ph.D CETENA S.p.A. - Italian Ship Research Centre Via Ippolito d'Aste, 5 I-16121 Genova - Italy Tel: +39 010 5995 498 Fax: +39 010 5995 790 email: [email protected] EU Project Officer: Peter Crawley Rue de la Loi 200 Office: J79 1/19 B-1049 Brussels - BELGIUM Phone: 0032 (0)2 2996219 Fax: 0032 (0)2 2963307 email: [email protected]

Final Publishable Report

13