Revalidating Requirements: Rigging Hardware Case Study
description
Transcript of Revalidating Requirements: Rigging Hardware Case Study
![Page 2: Revalidating Requirements: Rigging Hardware Case Study](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814e47550346895dbbc878/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
WHY DOES THE SAFETY REQUIREMENT EXIST?
“We’ve always done it that way?”
How was the requirement validated?
What were the circumstances at the time?
Is the requirement still relevant (effective) in today’s environment?
![Page 3: Revalidating Requirements: Rigging Hardware Case Study](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814e47550346895dbbc878/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
SHACKLE FOR CRITICAL LIFT APPLICATION
AFSPCMAN 91-710 ASME B30.26
Initial Proof 2 x Rated Load 2 X Rated Load*
Post Proof Inspection Volumetric & NDE Visual
Periodic (annual) Proof 2 x Rated Load Not Required
Periodic (annual) Inspection
NDE(Dye Penetrant)
(Magnetic Particle) Visual
FAST FORWARD TO TODAY
Facility Cost ⇒ $110K annualUser Mission Cost ⇒ $ 34K per mission
TOTAL COST ON Eastern Range = ~$1M per year
![Page 4: Revalidating Requirements: Rigging Hardware Case Study](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814e47550346895dbbc878/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
BUT IS IT MORE SAFE?
![Page 5: Revalidating Requirements: Rigging Hardware Case Study](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814e47550346895dbbc878/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
US NAVY – high number of accidents◦ Causes: Uncertainty in the load
High corrosion environmentNo Consensus standard for
design◦ Solution: Annual 2 x rated load test
OSHA in its infancy
US Air Force Range◦ Adopt 2 x RL in ESMC (1984)
![Page 6: Revalidating Requirements: Rigging Hardware Case Study](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814e47550346895dbbc878/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
1970 2000
Weak OSHA Strong OSHA
Inconsistent Design FOS Consensus FOS
Various materials Specific Materials
2 x rated test solution 2 x rated test solution
WHAT DOES ASME SAY ABOUT 2 x RL TESTING?
Do not recommend exceeding 42% yield strength or fatigue may occur (ASME B30.20 interpretation)
![Page 7: Revalidating Requirements: Rigging Hardware Case Study](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814e47550346895dbbc878/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Does annual 2 x RL proof increase safety?
Are Magnetic Particle or Dye Penetrate inspections required to find critical flaws?
![Page 8: Revalidating Requirements: Rigging Hardware Case Study](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814e47550346895dbbc878/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
10 Fatigue Rated shackles failed in fatigue when subject to 2 x RL
BUST
E
D
![Page 9: Revalidating Requirements: Rigging Hardware Case Study](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814e47550346895dbbc878/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Failed @ 2.87 x RL Failed @ 1.28 x RL
Failed @ 1.87 x RL Failed @ 2.28 x RLBUST
E
D
![Page 10: Revalidating Requirements: Rigging Hardware Case Study](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814e47550346895dbbc878/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Chance of improperly tested Change of damage during installation Change of damage during installation
![Page 11: Revalidating Requirements: Rigging Hardware Case Study](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062322/56814e47550346895dbbc878/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
REVISIT YOUR SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
REVALIDATE THEY ARE FULLFILLING THEIR INTENDED PURPOSE
◦ YES – ENFORCE THEM◦ NO – CHANGE THEM