anthony underhill 321-730-6269 [email protected] [email protected]
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 2: Anthony Underhill 321-730-6269 anthony.underhill@mantech.com capt_underhill@yahoo.com](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/5697bfd81a28abf838caf362/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: Anthony Underhill 321-730-6269 anthony.underhill@mantech.com capt_underhill@yahoo.com](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/5697bfd81a28abf838caf362/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: Anthony Underhill 321-730-6269 anthony.underhill@mantech.com capt_underhill@yahoo.com](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/5697bfd81a28abf838caf362/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
BUT IS IT MORE SAFE?
![Page 5: Anthony Underhill 321-730-6269 anthony.underhill@mantech.com capt_underhill@yahoo.com](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/5697bfd81a28abf838caf362/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: Anthony Underhill 321-730-6269 anthony.underhill@mantech.com capt_underhill@yahoo.com](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/5697bfd81a28abf838caf362/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: Anthony Underhill 321-730-6269 anthony.underhill@mantech.com capt_underhill@yahoo.com](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/5697bfd81a28abf838caf362/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: Anthony Underhill 321-730-6269 anthony.underhill@mantech.com capt_underhill@yahoo.com](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/5697bfd81a28abf838caf362/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
10 Fatigue Rated shackles failed in fatigue when subject to 2 x RL
BUST
E
D
![Page 9: Anthony Underhill 321-730-6269 anthony.underhill@mantech.com capt_underhill@yahoo.com](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/5697bfd81a28abf838caf362/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: Anthony Underhill 321-730-6269 anthony.underhill@mantech.com capt_underhill@yahoo.com](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/5697bfd81a28abf838caf362/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Chance of improperly tested Change of damage during installation Change of damage during installation
![Page 11: Anthony Underhill 321-730-6269 anthony.underhill@mantech.com capt_underhill@yahoo.com](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062301/5697bfd81a28abf838caf362/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
REVISIT YOUR SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
REVALIDATE THEY ARE FULLFILLING THEIR INTENDED PURPOSE
◦ YES – ENFORCE THEM◦ NO – CHANGE THEM