ASME B30.9 INTERPRETATIONS - tajhizkala.ir

ASME B30.9 INTERPRETATIONS


Replies to Technical InquiriesJanuary 2008 Through October 2009

FOREWORD

This publication includes all of the written replies issued between the indicated dates by theSecretary, speaking for the ASME B30 Standards Committee, Safety Standards for Cableways,Cranes, Derricks, Hoists, Hooks, Jacks, and Slings, to inquiries concerning interpretations oftechnical aspects of ASME B30.9, Slings.

These replies are taken verbatim from the original letters except for a few typographicalcorrections and some minor editorial corrections made for the purpose of improved clarity. Insome few instances, a review of the interpretation revealed a need for corrections of a technicalnature; in these cases, a corrected interpretation follows immediately after the original reply.

These interpretations were prepared in accordance with the accredited ASME procedures.ASME procedures provide for reconsideration of these interpretations when or if additionalinformation is available that the inquirer believes might affect the interpretation. Further, personsaggrieved by this interpretation may appeal to the cognizant ASME Committee or Subcommittee.ASME does not “approve,” “certify,” “rate,” or “endorse” any item, construction, proprietarydevice, or activity.

I-1

Copyright ASME International Provided by IHS under license with ASME Licensee=Purdue University/5923082001

Not for Resale, 04/13/2012 10:54:31 MDTNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS

--`,,,,,,``,,,`,`,`,`,,,,```,,`,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---


Interpretation: 9-27

Subject: ASME B30.9-1996, Para. 9-5.3(a)

Date Issued: January 30, 2008

Question: ASME B30.9-1996, para. 9-5.3(a) states, “A sling shall not be used at a load greaterthan that shown in the appropriate table or on its tag.” Is the appropriate table meant to befollowed as stated and the term “or on its tag” meant for multi-ply slings for which no table isavailable?

Reply: In the 1996 and all subsequent revisions, the rated load on the tag (or identification)takes precedence over the rated loads shown in the tables.


Subject: ASME B30.9-2006, Para. 9-6.2.3

Date Issued: January 30, 2008

Background: Para. 9-6.2.3 states, “Finishes and coatings shall be compatible with the othercomponents and not impair the other performance of the sling.” End users have commented thatroundsling manufacturers commonly stencil or screen markings or names on the outer sleeves(covers) of the roundsling.

Question (1): As these markings are on the cover and not directly on the load-bearing fibers,are users to assume that this is an accepted and allowable practice?

Reply (1): The practice would be allowable as long as it does not impair the performance ofthe sling. The Subcommittee cannot answer this question for every manufacturer and stencilingpractice, so the specific sling manufacturer would need to be consulted to answer this question.

Question (2): Has there been an indication of the ink transferring through to the yarns andpossibly causing an issue?

Reply (2): The Subcommittee is not aware of instances of ink transferring through to the yarnand causing any impairment issue.


Subject: ASME B30.9-2006, Para. 9-2.6.1(a)

Date Issued: February 21, 2008

Question: Para. 9-2.6.1(a) states, “Prior to initial use, all new swaged sockets, poured sockets,turnback eyes, mechanical joint grommets, and endless slings shall be proof tested by the slingmanufacturer or a qualified person.” May sample proof testing of lots be performed to meet thisprovision?

Reply: No. Each sling of the types specified requires a proof test prior to initial use. Samplingor batch testing does not satisfy this requirement.



Date Issued: September 29, 2008

Question: For sling repairs, does the “qualified person” have to be authorized by the originalmanufacturer?

Reply: No.

I-2



--`,,,,,,``,,,`,`,`,`,,,,```,,`,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---



Subject: ASME B30.9-2006, Slings, Para. 9-6.7.1(e)


Question: If you use a high performance core strand and a nylon cover, does the cover materialneed to be identified as nylon on the sling identification or can you use a tradename?

Reply: The cover material needs to be identified.



Date Issued: October 22, 2009

Question: Is it an acceptable practice to accept a higher load rating from a manufacturer versusthe published ratings in ASME B30.9-2006?

Reply: ASME B30 is not capable of answering a general question regarding what is, or is not,an “acceptable practice.” However, the rated load described in the Volume is based on specificmaterial requirements addressed in Section 9-5.2: Materials and Components. Additionally,para. 9-5.2.5 states, “Synthetic webbings other than those listed in paras. 9-5.2.1 and 9-5.2.4 maybe employed. When such materials are employed, the sling manufacturer or a qualified personshall provide specific data. These slings shall comply with all other requirements of the Chapter.”




Question: In Section VI of the Standard Introduction of the Standard, the verbiage is exact onthe actions of the words “shall” and “should.” With this being acknowledged, is it an acceptablepractice to exceed the values shown in Table 9-6.5.2-1, provided that the angle of choke is 120 degor greater?

Reply: Yes. However, ASME B30 is not capable of answering a general question regarding whatis, or is not, an “acceptable practice.”

I-3



--`,,,,,,``,,,`,`,`,`,,,,```,,`,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---



Subject: ASME B30.9-2006, Section 9-5.2


Question: Are webbing slings that incorporate a design factor of 5, but are stated to havecapacity values different (either more or less) than the published capacity values as prescribedin ASME B30.9, Chapter 9-5, in conformance with the ASME B30.9 Standard?

Reply: Yes. The rated load described in the Volume is based on specific material requirementsaddressed in Section 9-5.2: Materials and Components. Additionally, para. 9-5.2.5 states, “Syntheticwebbings other than those listed in paras. 9-5.2.1 and 9-5.2.4 may be employed. When suchmaterials are employed, the sling manufacturer or a qualified person shall provide specific data.These slings shall comply with all other requirements of the Chapter.”




Question: If one component of a used mechanical chain sling is replaced due to damage orwear, does the entire chain sling have to be proof tested before being put back into service?

Reply: No. Either the component being replaced would have to be proof tested or the finishedassembly (sling) would require proof testing by the sling manufacturer or a qualified personbefore returning the sling to service.

I-4



--`,,,,,,``,,,`,`,`,`,,,,```,,`,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---


Replies to Technical Inquiries July 1994 - March 1997

FOREWORD

This publication includes all of the written replies issued between the indicated dates by the Secretary, speaking for the ASME B30 Committee, Safety Standard for Cableways, Cranes, Demcks, Hoists, Hooks, Jacks, and Slings, to inquiries concerning interpretations of technical aspects of ASME B30.9, Slings.

These replies are taken verbatim from the original letters, except for a few typographical corrections and some minor editorial corrections made for the purpose of improved clarity. In some few instances, a review of the interpretations revealed a need for corrections of a technical nature: in these cases a corrected interpretation immediately follows the original reply.

These interpretations were prepared in accordance with the accredited ASME procedures. ASME procedures provide for reconsideration of these interpretations when or if additional information is available which the inquirer believes might affect the interpretation. Further, persons aggrieved by this interpretation may appeal to the cognizant ASME Committee or Subcommittee. ASME does not “approve,” “certify,” “rate,” or “endorse” any item, construction, proprietary device, or activity.

I



--`,,,,,,``,,,`,`,`,`,,,,```,,`,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

B30.9 interpretations


Subject: ASME B30.9-1996, Slings

Date Issued: March 7. 1997

Question (1): Please clarify whether chain slings should be removed from service if they are found to contain carbon steel sling hooks. B30.9-1996 defers us to B30.10-1993 in regards to hook issues. Based on this volume, any material, i.e., even plastic, could be used, as long as it conforms to criteria set forth in Section 10-1.1.2. The title, as well as the scope, for Chapter 9-1 of B30.9-1996 itself, “Alloy Steel Chain Slings,” implies that the volume applies to slings made entirely of alloy steel. Does the alloy adjective pertain only to the chain itself, or does it apply to the sling as a whole?

Reply (1): Paragraph 9-1.1.3 states components of alloy chain slings shall meet the requirements of Section 9-1.7, Attachments. Paragraph 9-1.7.1 states that attachments, hooks included, shall have a rated load at least equal to that of the alloy steel chain with which they are used. It does not require additional material specifications. Therefore, in .this context, the alloy adjective applies only to the chain as a mandated requirement.

Question (2): Does the answer differ if the sling is a mechanically assembled sling, as compared to a welded type sling?

Reply (2): No, there is no distinction, made or intended, between welded or mechanically assembled slings.

9-19

9



--`,,,,,,``,,,`,`,`,`,,,,```,,`,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---


Replies to Technical Inquiries July 1994 -June 1996

FOREWORD

This publication includes all of the written replies issued between the indicated dates by the Secretary, speaking for the ASME B30 Committee, Safety Standard for Cableways, Cranes, Derricks, Hoists, Hooks, Jacks, and Slings, to inquiries concerning interpretations of technical aspects of ASME B30.9, Slings.



1



--`,,,,,,``,,,`,`,`,`,,,,```,,`,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

630.9 Interpretations 9-17, 9-18


Subject: ASME B30.9-1990, Slings, including B30.9a-1991, B30.9b-1993, and B30.9~-1994

Date Issued: December 12, 1995

Question (I): Does the term “mechanical splice” mean, “a return loop, flernish eye, or farmers splice that is completed by pressing (swaging) one or more metal sleeves over the rope juncture”? [Reference: Wire Rope Slings Users Manual (1990), page 1 l.]

Reply (1): The term is already defined under the entry “splice, mechanical.”

Question (4): While slings with “swaged sockets” require proof testing, am I correct to understand this Standard leaves proof testing of slings with “swaged sleeves” to the purchaser’s discretion?

Reply (4): Yes.


Subject: ASME B30.9a-1991, Section 9-2.5 - Sling Identification

Date Issued: June 14, 1996

Question (1): Section 9-2.5 states “Wire rope slings should be identified by the rated load and manufacturer. This identification should be maintained for life of the sling.” Does Section 9-2.5 require the sling fabricator to stamp any information on the press steel sleeve of a flemish eye mechanical spliced sling?

Reply (1): ASME B30.9 is a safety standard written in performance language; simply stated, the Standard describes what end result should be achieved. Therefore, the section will not specify any methods for accomplishing the identification process.

Question (2): Does Section 9-2.5 require the sling fabricator to tag all slings?

Reply (2): The word “should” in Section 9-2.5 indicates the provision is of an advisory nature and is a recommendation to be considered. Therefore, any type of tagging is a recommendation and not a requirement.

7



--`,,,,,,``,,,`,`,`,`,,,,```,,`,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

S T D - A S M E B30.7 I N T - E N G L m 0757b70 0578528 830


Replies to Technical Inquiries June 1994 -June 1995

FOREWORD

This publication includes all of the written replies issued between the indicated dates by the Secretary, speaking for the ASME B30 committee, Safety Standard for Cableways, Cranes, Derricks, Hoists, Hooks, Jacks, and Slings, to inquiries concerning interpretations of technical aspects of ASME B30.9, Slings.



I



--`,,,,,,``,,,`,`,`,`,,,,```,,`,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

STD-ASME -B30 .9 I N T - E N G L m U759b70 0578529 777

830.9 interpretations



Date Issued: December 20. 1994

Question ( I ) : Are Kevlar slings included in design factors for natural and synthetic fiber rope slings in Section 9-4.2?

Reply ( I ) : Section 9-4.2, Design Factor, states: “The following design factors shall be used for the four basic fiber types detailed in this Standard:

Fiber Type Design Factor

Natural (Manila and Sisal) Nylon Polyeater Polypropylene

Kevlar slings are not addressed.

Question ( 2 ) : Should Kevlar slings be included i n Chapters 9-4 or 9-S?

Reply (2): The B30 Committee has not addressed the inclusion of Kevlar slings in Chapters 9-4 or 9-S, and therefore, cannot express an opinion to your question.

9-13

3



--`,,,,,,``,,,`,`,`,`,,,,```,,`,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

STD-ASME 830.9 I N T - E N G L m 0759b70 0578530 q77 m

9-14 830.9 Interpretations



Date Issued: December 20, 1994

Question ( 1 ) : High stranding is taken to be distortion of the wire rope structure, and it may occur, i n frequent cases, during the fabrication of an eye splice, where the cause is one of workmanship and not damage. Can some form of high stranding occur within the eye splice that is acceptable as not violating para. 9-2.8.3(b)(3), “...other damage resulting in distortion of the rope structure ...,” even if the cause is unknown?

Reply ( I ) : Paragraph 9-2.8.3(b) states: “Conditions such as the following should be sufficient reason for questioning sling safety and for

(3) kinking, crushing, birdcaging, or any other damage resulting in distortion of the rope structure;” High stranding caused by fabrication found during receiving inspection is not considered to be

consideration of replacement ...

damaged and does not fall within the intended coverage of Chapter 9-2 of B30.9.

Question (2): If the answer to Question ( I ) is yes, then how many strands can be elevated and how far from their original position?

Reply (2): The Committee has not addressed this subject but will forward this question to our technical support organizations, Associated Wire Rope Fabricators (AWRF) and the Wire Rope Technical Board (WRTB). We will ask them to respond to the Committee. At that time the Committee will consider an inclusion of a removal criteria in a future addenda of this volume.

Question (3): A recessed dead end of a wire rope in a foldback eye is generally unacceptable to swage hardware manufacturers and they typically provide procedures to guard against that condition, but we can find no ruling to specifically prohibit that occurrence. Is there reason to believe that any recess is acceptable, or would the Committee prohibit that occurrence by rule if so requested?

Reply (3): The question is beyond the purview of the Committee. I t is a design question which should be addressed by the individual fitting manufacturer.

4



--`,,,,,,``,,,`,`,`,`,,,,```,,`,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

630.9 Interpretations



Date Issued: March 16, 1995

Question ( I ) : Is i t the intent of B30.9 to limit synthetic sling material to those in the document (i.e., rope: nylon, polyester, and polypropylene; web slings: nylon and polyester type yams)?

Reply ( I ) : No. Section 9-0.1, Scope of B30.9, states: “Slings made from materials or constructions other than those detailed i n this Standard shall be used only in accordance with recommendations of the sling manufacturer.” We recognize that materials other than those covered exist now OT may be available i n the future.

Question (2): Are improvements in materials allowed?

Reply (2): Yes, when used in accordance with Section 9-0.1.

Question (3): Are improvements in materials for synthetic rope and web slings regularly monitored and evaluated for acceptability?

Reply (3): B30.9 is a safety standard, not a materials acceptance standard; however, when factual data is received it is considered and may be included in future addenda.

Question (4): Does B30.9 explicitly prohibit the use of synthetic rope/web slings in environments or under conditions outside of the ranges listed in Chapters 9-4 and 9-5?

Reply (4): Paragraphs 9-4.6.1, 9-4.6.2, and 9-5.6.1 specifically allow the manufacturer to make recommendation for temperatures outside the range of -20°F to 150°F and for use in chemically active environments. Nylon and polyester web slings per para. 9-5.6.2 are prohibited from being used at temperatures in excess of 194°F.

Question (S): Is it the intent of B30.9 to have a difference in the level or type of inspection for frequent and periodic inspections of synthetic fiber rope and web slings?

Reply ( 5 ) : Yes. A frequent inspection is a “should” requirement and is to be performed by the person handling the sling each day it is used. A periodic inspection also is a “should” requirement but is to be conducted by a designated person and it is recommended that the periodic inspection be conducted at least annually.

Question (6): Is B30.9 considered a National Consensus Standard as defined by OSHA?

Reply (6): Yes. But i t is not “incorporated by reference” as defined by OSHA.

Question (7): Do the requirements of B30.9 take precedence over the requirements of standards established and promulgated by Agencies of the U S . Military?

Reply (7): B30.9 is a voluntary standard and we cannot make a recommendation as to precedence. This Standard presents a coordinated set of rules that may serve as a guide to government and other regulatory bodies and municipal authorities responsible for guarding and inspection of the equipment falling within its scope. The suggestions leading to accident prevention are given both as mandatory and advisory provisions; compliance with both types may be required by employers of their employees.

9-15

5



--`,,,,,,``,,,`,`,`,`,,,,```,,`,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

9-16 630.9 Interpretations


Subject: ASME B30.9b- 1993, Slings

Date Issued: June 20, 1995

Question ( I ) : For chain slings, does the statement in para. 9-1.8.l(b)(2), Periodic Inspection, “...Visual inspection by a designated person making a record of inspection ...” indicate a “shall”? Please note that for wire rope slings, para. 9-2.8.2, Periodic Inspection, states: “...Inspection shall include a record of the inspection.. .”

Reply ( I ) : Yes. While the word “shall” does not appear in para. 9- I .8.l(b), this paragraph is a definition of the general classification of periodic inspection. Paragraph 9-1.8.3, Periodic Inspection, however. states clearly that periodic inspection ‘‘shall be performed at intervals as defined in para. 9- 1.8.1 (b)(2).”

Question (2): If the answer to Question ( I ) is to the affirmative, are there any reasons why the Committee has not required the same for Metal Mesh Slings, para. 9-3.8. I , or Synthetic Webbing Slings, para. 9-5.8.4, which both show “should” in reference to Periodic Inspection and Records?

Reply ( 2 ) : Metal mesh slings, para. 9-3.8.1 of B30.9b-1993, does not address inspection records. The Committee has directed the B30.9 Subcommittee to consider the issue for the next addenda. Synthetic web slings, para. 9-5.8.5, Inspection Records, requires that written inspection records “should” be kept and is not mandatory. The rationale is that the serialization of synthetic slings is difficult. Synthetic slings are also easy to inspect on a daily basis.

6



--`,,,,,,``,,,`,`,`,`,,,,```,,`,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

ANSIIASME B30.9-I 984 Interpretations - No. 3

Replies to Technical Inquiries 1988

FOREWORD

This publication includes all of the written replies issued in the year indicated by the Secretary, speaking for the ASME B30 Committee, Safety Standards for Cableways, Cranes, Derricks, Hoists, Hooks, Jacks, and Slings, to inquiries concerning interpretations of technical aspects of ANSUASME B30.9-1984, Slings.

These replies are taken verbatim from the original letters except for a few typographical corrections and some minor editorial corrections made for the purpose of improved clarity. In some few instances, a review of the interpretation revealed a need for corrections of a technical nature: in these cases a corrected interpretation follows immediately after the original reply.

These interpretations were prepared in accordance with the accredited ASME procedures. ASME procedures provide for reconsideration of these interpretations when or if additional information is available which the inquirer believes might affect the interpretation. Further, persons aggrieved by this interpretation may appeal to the cognizant ASME committee or subcommittee. ASME does not & b approve,” “certify,” “rate,” or “endorse” any item, construction, proprietary device, or activity.



--`,,,,,,``,,,`,`,`,`,,,,```,,`,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

= 9009275 0018283 LLiT

030.9 interpretations No. 3 9-5

Interpretation: 9-5

Subject: ANSUASME B30.9- 1984

Date Issued: March 21, 1988

Question (1): Is there a further reduction of capacity caused by the angle of inclination?

Reply (1): There is no reduction in the rated load due to the angle of inclination. The angle of inclination is defined as the angle formed by the wire rope body of a sling, used as a choke, with the attached hoisted material being out of horizontal.

Question (2): Why is the rated capacity of wire rope slings for the same size and construction the same regardless of the efficiency of the splice, Le., when used as a choker?

Reply (2): The limiting factor in determining the choker hitch rating for a sling is the efficiency of the choke hitch. The choke hitch efficiency is less than the splice efficiency. The choke hitch efficiency is applied to the nominal breaking strength of the wire rope, not the sling.

Question (3): Why are the capacities of choker hitches the same regardless of the type of splice in the tables of ANSUASME B30.9-1984 for wire rope slings?

Reply (3): See Reply (2).

3



--`,,,,,,``,,,`,`,`,`,,,,```,,`,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

= 9009275 0038269 87T

ANSVASME B30.9-1984 Interpretations No. 2

Replies to Technical Inquiries 1986-1 987

FOREWORD

This publication includes all of the written replies issued between the indicated dates by the Sec- retary, speaking for the ASME B30 Committee, Safety Standards for Cableways, Cranes, Derricks, Hoists, Hooks, Jacks, and Slings, to inquiries concerning interpretations of technical aspects of ANSI/ ASME B30.9-1984, Slings.


These interpretations were prepared in accordance with the accredited ASME procedures. ASME procedures provide for reconsideration of these interpretations when or if additional information is available which the inquirer believes might affect the interpretation. Further, persons aggrieved by this interpretation may appeal to the cognizant ASME committee or subcommittee. ASME does not “approve,” “certify,” “rate,” or “endorse” any item, construction, proprietary device, or activity.

1



--`,,,,,,``,,,`,`,`,`,,,,```,,`,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

= 9009275 0018270 591 W

830.9 Interpretations No. 2

Interpretation: 9-3 - Subject: ANSUASME B30.9-1984

Date Issued: July 14, 1987

Question ( 1 ) : Are there any recommended guidelines for shelf life for web belt material and the thread used for stitching?

Reply (1): Shelf life is not specifically addressed in B30.9. Paragraph 9-5.9(1) states that “slings should be stored in a cool, dry, and dark place to prevent environmental damage.” The effects of environment are outlined in Section 9-5.5 and removal criteria are outlined in Section 9-5.7. For more specific information, contact the manufacturer.

Question ( 2 ) : Are there any recommended guidelines for the stitching patterns used in sewing web belt slings? Can any test results comparing the different stitching patterns be provided?

Reply ( 2 ) : The B30.9 Standard is a safety standard and not a design standard. There are no guidelines for stitch patterns.

Question (3): Should a belt that has been used in moderate service for over 5 years be taken out of service even though no visible damage (as cited in Section 9-5.7) is apparent?

Reply (3): A sling inspected in accordance with Section 9-5.6 (Inspection) and that exhibits none of the defects described under Section 9-5.7 (Removal Criteria) is safe to use.

Question (4): Is a periodic load test recommended? If so, what is the recommended frequency?

Reply (4): Periodic load testing is not recommended by the B30.9 Standard.

Question (5): Is there a significant difference in the design factors of nylon and polyester webbing?

Reply (5): The design factor for all synthetic web slings is 5 in accordance with Section 9-5.2. There are differences in the properties of nylon versus polyester; the manufacturer should be con- tacted for more information.

Question (6) : Is there any information available that categorizes web belt sling failures according to cause, location (on belt), type, etc.?

9-3

Reply (6): The B30 Committee does not collect statistical data categorizing web sling failure.

3



--`,,,,,,``,,,`,`,`,`,,,,```,,`,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

m 9009275 OOL827L 428 m

9-4 B30.9 Interpretations No. 2

Interpretation: 9.4

Subject: ANSUASME B30.9-1984


Question (1): What was the rationale or design assumptions used in the formulation of the requirement of 9-2.6.3, which states that “grommets and endless slings shall have a minimum circumferential length of 96 times the body diameter”?

Reply (1): The requirement for a minimum circumference of 96 times the body diameter for grommets and endless slings was based on the requirement to have at least three free rope lays on either side of the tuck of a hand spliced endless grommet prior to being bent around a hook or pin five times the body diameter. To eliminate the possibility of confusion, this requirement was adopted for mechanically spliced endless grommets as well.

Question (2): How is the “minimum circumferential length,” as referred to in 9-2.6.3, to be measured (i.e., inside, outside, or center line circumference)?

Reply (2): The minimum circumferential length is measured on the inside of the circumference.

Question (3): The standard of 9-2.6.3 relates to both grommets and endless slings. Due to the differing nature of their construction, does such a standard apply equally to both?

Reply (3): The standard as written applies to both hand spliced and mechanically spliced endless grommets.

Question (4): Is the endless sling shown below an acceptable means of constructing an endless sling (i.e., one end of wire rope laid over the other end and secured with two swaged sleeves)?

/k” Length of sling SL

Reply (4): Yes, if the drawing only depicts the general layout of a mechanically spliced endless grommet and is not intended to indicate dimensions.

4



--`,,,,,,``,,,`,`,`,`,,,,```,,`,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

9009215 0018241 790

ANSIIASME B30.9-’1984 Interpretations - No. 1

Replies to Technical Inquiries 1984- 1 985

FOREWORD

This publication includes all of the written replies issued between the indicated dates by the Sec- retary, speaking for the ASME I330 Committee, Safety Standards for Cableways, Cranes, Derricks, Hoists, Hooks, Jacks, and Slings, to inquiries concerning interpretations of technical aspects of ANSI/ ASME B30.9-1984, Slings.


These interpretations were prepared in accordance with the accredited ASME procedures. ASME procedures provide for reconsideration of these interpretations when or if additional information is available which the inquirer believes might affect the interpretation. Further, persons aggrieved by this interpretation may appeal to the cognizant ASME committee or subcommittee. ASME does not ‘ L approve,” “certify, ” “rate,” or “endorse” any item, construction, proprietary device, or activity.



--`,,,,,,``,,,`,`,`,`,,,,```,,`,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

830.9 Interpretations No. 1 9-1, 9-2

Interpretation: 9-1

Subject: ANSI B30.9-1971

Date Issued: August 12, 1985

Question: Are polyester round slings covered by Chapter 9-4 or 9-5 of ANSI B30.9-1971? If not, what inspection criteria should be applied to continuous loop fiber slings to meet the intent of ANSI B30.9-1971?

Reply: Polyester round slings are not addressed in B30.9 and do not fall within the scope of the Standard. The end users of these round slings should contact the manufacturers for information regarding the inspection procedures and criteria.

Interpretation: 9-2

Subject: ANSIIASME B30.9-1984


Question (1): What is meant by “shock loading” in Section 9-1.9(j)?

Reply (1): Shock loading is a difficult term to define within the context of lifting slings. The intent of the term is to call attention to the application of any sudden or unplanned loading of a sling that would jeopardize the safety of the lift. The term applies to a dynamic situation where the instan- taneous application of loads of unknown magnitude may result in damage or fracture of a sling.

Typical examples of situations that could result in shock loading are: (u) rapid travel of the burden block without alteration of speed before all slack is removed

(b) unplanned shifting of the load while suspended by a sling(s); (c) fracture of a lifting system component resulting in the application of unknown loading on

remaining components. As can be seen, each of the examples deals with a situation that falls outside the usual interpre-

tation of good lifting practices. Therefore, if the operating practices shown in Para. 9-1.9 of B30.9 and Para. 2-3.2 of B30.2 are followed, the possibility for shock loading will be minimized.

from the sling(s);

Question (2): What measure can be utilized to determine normal loading of a sling from shock loading?

Reply (2): It is virtually impossible to quantify the effects of shock loading. All slings have a

Since we are dealing with a term that cannot be quantified, emphasis must be placed on careful design factor that will accommodate normal usage within the context of Paras. 9-5.9 and 9-5.7.

observance of approved practices to minimize or eliminate shock loading.

. L. .”i 1 1 1 5 -- J- ... - Copyright ASME International Provided by IHS under license with ASME Licensee=Purdue University/5923082001


--`,,,,,,``,,,`,`,`,`,,,,```,,`,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

ASME B30.9 INTERPRETATIONS - tajhizkala.ir

Documents

Transcript of ASME B30.9 INTERPRETATIONS - tajhizkala.ir