SlideServe
Télécharger Obtenir Pro
Menu
Accueil Pro
Préférences
ApparenceLight Aide et commentaires
© SlideServe · v2026

Revalidating Requirements: Rigging Hardware Case Study

neka avatar
neka
11 diapositives · 233 Views · Sep 07, 2014

This case study, presented by Anthony Underhill, explores the necessity and relevance of current rigging safety requirements in today’s environment. With a focus on historical context and contemporary practices, the study examines the safety impacts of traditional 2x rated load testing, evaluating its efficacy against modern operational needs. It questions long-held assumptions and encourages industry professionals to revalidate their safety measures. The findings advocate for a critical reassessment of outdated protocols to ensure they meet current safety standards and operational effectiveness.

#revalidating requirements: rigging hardware case study #revalidating requirements: rigging hardware case study ppt #powerpoint #presentation
Revalidating Requirements: Rigging Hardware Case Study - slide 1
01 / 11Revalidating Requirements: Rigging Hardware Case Study
1 / 17

Télécharger la présentation

Revalidating Requirements: Rigging Hardware Case Study
Une image / un lien ci-dessous est fourni (tel quel) pour télécharger la présentation

Politique de téléchargement : le contenu du site vous est fourni TEL QUEL pour votre information et votre usage personnel ; il ne peut être vendu, concédé sous licence ni partagé sur d’autres sites sans l’accord de son auteur.Le contenu vous est fourni TEL QUEL, pour votre information et votre usage personnel uniquement. Téléchargez la présentation en cliquant sur ce lien. Lors du téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à télécharger une présentation, l’éditeur a peut-être supprimé le fichier de son serveur.Pendant le téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à obtenir une présentation, le fichier a peut-être été supprimé par l’éditeur.

F I N

Plus de contenu associé

Transcription de la présentation

  1. Revalidating Requirements:Rigging Hardware Case Study Anthony Underhill 321-730-6269 anthony.underhill@mantech.com capt_underhill@yahoo.com

  2. “We’ve always done it that way?” Is the requirement still relevant (effective) in today’s environment? WHY DOES THE SAFETY REQUIREMENT EXIST? How was the requirement validated? What were the circumstances at the time?

  3. FAST FORWARD TO TODAY Facility Cost ⇒ $110K annual User Mission Cost ⇒ $ 34K per mission TOTAL COST ON Eastern Range = ~$1M per year

  4. Cheap Insurance – Right? BUT IS IT MORE SAFE?

  5. Back to 1970 • US NAVY – high number of accidents • Causes: Uncertainty in the load High corrosion environment No 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)

  6. Three Decades Later WHAT DOES ASME SAY ABOUT 2 x RL TESTING? Do not recommend exceeding 42% yield strength or fatigue may occur (ASME B30.20 interpretation)

  7. Is Range STD More Safe? • Does annual 2 x RL proof increase safety? • Are Magnetic Particle or Dye Penetrate inspections required to find critical flaws?

  8. MYTH #1 – 2 x RL increase Safety 10 Fatigue Rated shackles failed in fatigue when subject to 2 x RL BUSTED

  9. Myth 2 – Hair line crack Failed @ 1.28 x RL Failed @ 2.87 x RL BUSTED Failed @ 1.87 x RL Failed @ 2.28 x RL

  10. Additional Load Test Risk • Chance of improperly tested • Change of damage during installation • Change of damage during installation Fact: 10,500 crane lift during EPF construction. No rigging gear failed. ASME B30 used.

  11. CONCLUSION • REVISIT YOUR SAFETY REQUIREMENTS • REVALIDATE THEY ARE FULLFILLING THEIR INTENDED PURPOSE • YES – ENFORCE THEM • NO – CHANGE THEM