Revalidating Requirements: Rigging Hardware Case Study. Anthony Underhill 321-730-6269 email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org. “ We ’ ve always done it that way? ”. Is the requirement still relevant (effective) in today ’ s environment?.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Revalidating Requirements:Rigging Hardware Case Study
“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?
FAST FORWARD TO TODAY
Facility Cost ⇒ $110K annual
User Mission Cost ⇒ $ 34K per mission
TOTAL COST ON Eastern Range = ~$1M per year
BUT IS IT MORE SAFE?
High corrosion environment
No Consensus standard for design
WHAT DOES ASME SAY ABOUT 2 x RL TESTING?
Do not recommend exceeding 42% yield strength or
fatigue may occur (ASME B30.20 interpretation)
10 Fatigue Rated shackles failed in fatigue
when subject to 2 x RL
Failed @ 1.28 x RL
Failed @ 2.87 x RL
Failed @ 1.87 x RL
Failed @ 2.28 x RL
Fact: 10,500 crane lift during EPF construction. No rigging gear failed. ASME B30 used.