1830.9 Interpratations No. 1 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 B30.9-19712 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 re- ‘garding the inspection procedures and criteria. Interpretation: 9-2 Subject: ANSI/ASME B30.9-1984 Date Issued: September 12, 1985 Question (1): What is meant by *‘shock loading in Section 9-1.9())? Reply (1): Shock loading is a difficult term to define within the context of lifting slings. The intent of the term isto 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: (@) rapid travel of the burden block without alteration of speed before all slack is removed from the sling(s); (®) unplanned shifting of the load while suspended by a sling(s); (©) 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. 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 design factor that will accommodate normal usage within the context of Paras. 9-5.9 and 9-5.7. Since we are dealing with a term that cannot be quantified, emphasis must be placed on careful ‘observance of approved practices to minimize or eliminate shock loading.820.9 Interpretations No. 2 93 Interpretation: 9-3 Subject: ANSI/ASME B30.9-1984 Date Isued: 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): Ate there any recommended guidelines for the stitching pattems 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 pattems. 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 web- bing? Reply (S): The design factor fr all synthetic web slings is Sin accordance with Section 9-5. There ae differences in the properties of nylon versus polyester; the manufacturer should be con- tacted for more information. Question (6): Is there any informatio to cause, location (on belt), type, etc.? silable that categorizes web belt sling failures according Reply (6): The B30 Committee does not collect statistical data categorizing web sling failure.1830.9 Interpretations No. 2 Interpretation: 9.4 Subject: ANSI/ASME B30.9-1984 Date Issued: October 7, 1987 Question (1): What was the rationale or design assumptions used in the formulation of the re- quirement of 9-2.6.3, which states that ‘grommets and endless slings shall have a minimum circum- ferential 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 of 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, 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 (.e., one end of wire rope laid over the other end and secured with two swaged sleeves)? Length of sting St Reply (4): Yes, if the drawing only depicts the general layout of a mechanically spliced endless grommet and is not intended to indicate dimensions.830.9 Interpretations Interpretation: 9.6 Subject: ANSUASME B30,9-1984 Date Issued: September 21, 1989 ‘Question: Per Section 9-2.8, Sling Inspection and Replacement, “. .. main strand displacement and core protrusion should be replaced by a designated person largely upon the use of a good judgement in evaluating remaining strength.” How much is allowable strand displacement and core protrusion? What is the qualification to become a designated person? What is the interpretation of good judgement? Reply: The B30.9 Standard does not specify allowable distortion of rope in the sling such as kinking, crushing, unstranding, birdcaging, main strand displacement, or core protrusion. Guidance on allowable strand displacement and core protrusion should be obtained from the rope manufac- turer. 1B30.9 defines designated as “selected or assigned by the employer or employer's representative as being qualified to perform specific duties.” Qualified is defined as “a person who, by possession of a recognized degree or certificate of professional standing, or who by extensive knowledge, training, and experience, has successfully demonstrated the ability to solve or resolve problems relating to the subject matter and work Good judgement, as used in this paragraph, is interpreted as the decisions made by a qualified person. 9697 830.9 Interpretations Interpretation: 9-7 Subject: ANSU/ASME B30.9-1984 Date Issued: September 21, 1989 ‘Question (1): Is it the intention of B30.9 that basket hitch slings with less than those stated Did ratios be precluded from use? Reply (1): Section 9.2.2.1, Rated Load states: “Rated loads for wire rope slings shall be as shown in Tables 3 through 9. These rated loads are based on the following factors: (g) diameter of curvature around which sling is bent.” For Table 3, the diameter of curvature used as a basis for the rated loads is 25 times the rope diameter or a Did ratio of 25. Similarly, the D/d for Tables 4 and 5 is 40. It is not the intention of this Standard to, preclude the use of slings with less than stated Did ratios. When Did ratios less than stated are used, the rated load must be reduced. Consult the wire rope manufacturer or sling fabricator for details. Question (2): Is there any limitation intended for the Did ratio at the eye of vertical or basket slings? Reply (2): This Standard does not currently address this issue. Question (3): Can a basket sling with less than the D/d ratios specified in the tables be rated the same as a vertical sling of the same size and construction, or can higher ratings be used? Reply (3): This Standard does not currently address this issue.£830 9 Interpretations Interpretation: 9-8 Subject: ASME B30.92-1991 Date Issued: December 16, 1992 ‘Question (1): How should a sling fabricator or user interpret Section 9-2.8.2? “Section 9-2.8.2, Periodic Inspection, states the following: A periodic inspection shall be per- formed by a designated person on a regular basis with frequency of inspection based on: (a) frequency of sling use; (b) severity of service conditions, (c) nature of lifts being made; (6) experience gained on the service life of slings used in similar circumstances. Inspection shall be made at least annually and shall include a record of the inspection or of apparent conditions to provide the basis for a continuing evaluation. Inspection shall be conducted on the entire length of each sling including splices, end attachments, and fittings. Deterioration which would result in loss of original strength shall be observed and determination made whether further use of the sling would constitute a hazard. Paragraph 9-2.8.3 (replacement) can provide guidance in making such a determination.” Reply (1): ASME B30.9a, Section II states: “This Standard is designed to: (b) Provide direction to owners, employees, supervisors, and others concerned with, or responsible for, its application;” ‘The periodic inspection is required (shall) to be performed by a designated person. This des- ignated person is indentified in ASME B30.9a, Section 9-0.2 as: “Selected or assigned by the em- ployer or employee's representative as being competent to perform specific duties.” It is the interpretation of this Committee that the employer is the entity responsible for interpreting this section. Other than providing direction, this committee is unable to formulate any more specific response to this question. Question (2): Is the annual written documentation for wire rope slings now the same as it is and has been for chain slings? Reply (2): This Committee has endeavored to make the individual sections of this Standard easier to reference by giving similar sections a more standardized appearance. Each specific type of sling is addressed in separate chapters. While the requirement for periodic inspection of the various sling types covered in this Standard may appear similar, those in Section 9-2.8.2 are specific to wire rope sting.OB 290.9 Interpretations Question (3): How strongly does the word “shall “should”)? ” need to be interpreted (as opposed to Reply (3): ASME B30.9a, Section V — Mandatory and advisory rules states: “Mandatory rules of this volume are characterized by the use of the word shall. If a provision is of an advisory nature, it is indicated by the use of the word should and is a recommendation to be considered, the advis- ability of which depends on the facts in each situation.” Question (4): As a sling fabricator, what should we be doing to inform sting users of this Standard? Reply (4): While this Committee welcomes any and all assistance by sling fabricators or others to advise sling users ofthis Standard, there is no specific directive or obligation requiring that action except in the case where the sling fabricator is also the owner, employer, or supervisor of the sling user. See response to question No. 1. Question (5); Will OSHA interpret this Standard by wanting to see inspection documents and by punishment if no documentation is available? Reply (5): ASME B30.9a, Section II — Purpose states: “This Standard is designed to (c) guide governments and other regulatory bodies in the development, promulgation and enforcement of appropriate safety directives.” This Committee cannot ascertain how Section 9-2.8.2 will influence, affect, or change the expectation or requirements of OSHA or any other regulatory organization; nor can we determine what, if any, punitive actions might occur. Question (6): In short, what is Section 9-2.8.2 really saying? Reply (6): It is the sense of this Committee that ASME B30.9, Section 9-2.8.2 clearly states the requirements for periodic inspection of wire rope slings. If you believe additional detail is required, please be more specific as to the areas which you feel need clarification.£830,9 Interpretations Interpretation: 9.9 Subject ASME B30.9-1990, Slings Date Issued: September 17, 1993 ‘Question (1): 1 use a hg in. wire rope with a '/, in, tail chain to lift wooden poles in various lengths and sizes. I wrap the wire rope around the pole and hook the tail chain back on to the wire rope. Would the tail chain fall under the scope of B30.9 and be considered an alloy steel chain sling? Reply (1): No. Tail chains (commonly referred to as “winch line tail chains") are considered ‘an end attachment to the wire rope of the equipment. Question (2): Does it require tagging? Reply (2): As stated in reply to Question (1), the tail chain is not considered a sling and is not subject to the tagging requirements of B30.9. Interpretation: 9-10 Subject: ASME B30.9-1990, Slings Date Issued: September 17, 1993, Question: Does the removal criteria stated in Section 9-5.7 apply to users only or would likewise apply to the sling manufacturer and the manufacturing process? Reply: The answer to your question is no. The removal criteria was intended to be used by the consumer. Section 9-5.6.1(a), Initial Inspection states: “Before using any new or repaired sling, it shall be inspected to insure that the correct sling is being used, as well as to determine that the sling meets the requirements of this Standard.” Ifyou determine through inspection that new slings do not meet the requirements of this Standard, then they should not be placed in service.£830.9 interpretations Interpretation: 9-11 Subject: ASME B30,9-1990, Slings Date Issued: September 17, 1993 ‘Question (1): What is safety factor? Reply (1): The ASME B30.9 volume uses the term design factor instead of safety factor. Design factor is defined as the ratio between nominal or minimum breaking strength and the rated capacity of the sling Question (2): How do we get the safety factor? Reply (2): See Reply (3) Question (3): Why do wire rope slings have a safety factor of 6? Reply (3): In answer to Questions (2) and (3), Section 9-2.2.1(c) requires that the design factor for wire rope slings shall be a minimum of 5. The design factor of 5 was adopted to take into consideration factors such as dynamic loading, wear, and corrosion.830.9 Interpretations Interpretation: 9-12 Subject: ASME B30,9-1990, Date Issued: March 22, 1994 ‘Question (1): As stated within B30.9, the minimum design factor for the following stings shall be: (a) 5 for Metal Mesh Slings, Synthetic Webbing Slings, Manila and Sisal Rope Slings. (6) 9 for Nylon and Polyester and 6 for Polypropylene. ‘Why shall the minimum design factor for the above slings be 5, 9, and 6, respectively? Reply (1): Design factor is the ratio between nominal or minimum breaking strength and the rated capacity of the sling. The design factors for slings are based upon years of satisfactory service established by organizations and manufacturers and adopted by the Committee. Question (2): Can the minimum design factor for the above slings be down rated? If not advisable, please elaborate. Reply (2): The volume makes no allowance for design factors lower than those specified. Question (3): What are the recommended design factors for Wire Rope slings and Alloy Stee! Chain slings? Reply (3): ASME B30.%-1993, Section 9-2.2 states, “The design factor for wire rope slings shall be a minimum of 5.” Section 9-1.2 states, “The design factor for alloy steel chain slings shall be @ minimum of 4.” Question (4): How should the design factor be recommended to slings? Is it based on the environmental condition, material composition, o lifting operation? Please elaborate, Reply (4): Design factors for the five sling types covered in B30.9 are cited in B30.9b-1993, The second part of your question actually addresses operating conditions which are covered in each of the sling chapters. None of these factors have any bearing on altering the design factors selected. oz9-128 830.9 Interpretations 10 Interpretation: 9-128 Subject: ASME B30.9-1990, Slings Date Issued: June 16, 1994 ‘The following is a reconsideration of Question (4) on Interpretation 9-12: ‘Question (4): Please reconsider my question #4 in Interpretation 9-12. How does one determine the design/safety factor of a sling? Reply (4): The B30.9 definition of design factor is the “ratio between nominal or minimum breaking strength and rated cap: ‘The design factor referenced within the B30.9 volume is used by the sling manufacturer when producing the sling and is not relevant to the end user when selecting the sling. It is in B30.9 only as a point of information. When selecting or using a sling one should consult the slings’ rated capacity tables. It appears to the Committee that your question actually refers to rated capacity and not design factor, in that assumption, the factors listed previously in Question (4) do have relevance. Material ‘composition has already been considered by the Committee in publishing the rated capacity tables for the materials listed. The lifting operation has been considered as evidenced by the reduced rated ‘capacities at lifting angles other than vertical. However, environmental conditions cannot be anticipated by the Committee; and therefore, must be considered by the user.{830.9 Interpretations 93 Interpretation: 9-13 Subject: ASME B30.9-1990, Slings Date Issued: December 20, 1994 Question (1): Are Kevlar slings included in design factors for natural and synthetic fiber rope slings in Section 9-4.2 Reply (1): 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 s Nylon 5 Polyester 9 Polypropylene 6 Kevlar slings are not addressed, Question (2): Should Kevlar slings be included in Chapters 9-4 or 9-57 Reply (2): The B30 Committee has not addressed the inclusion of Kevlar slings in Chapters 9-4 or 9-5, and therefore, cannot express an opinion to your question,one 830.9 Interpretations Interpretation: 9-14 Subject: ASME B30.9-1990, Slings Date Issued: December 20, 1994 Question (1): High stranding is taken to be distortion of the wire rope structure, and it may occur, in frequent cases, during the fabrication of an eye splice, where the cause is one of workmanship and rot damage. Can some form of high stranding occur within the eye splice that is acceptable as not violating para, 9-2.8.3(6)(3), “other damage resulting in distortion of the rope structure...” even if the cause is unknown? Reply (1): Paragraph 9-2.8.3(b) states: ‘Conditions such as the following should be sufficient reason for questioning sling safety and for consideration of replacement. (2) 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 damaged and does not fall within the intended coverage of Chapter 9-2 of B30.9. Question (2); If the answer to Question (1) 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 @ 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 t0 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. It is a design question which should be addressed by the individual fitting manufacturer.830.9 Interpretations Interpretation: 9-15 Subject: ASME B30.9-1990, Stings Date Issued: March 16, 1995 Question (1): Is it the intent of B30.9 to limit synthetic sling material to those in the document (e., rope: nylon, polyester, and polypropylene; web slings: nylon and polyester type yarns)? Reply (1): No. Section 9-0.1, Scope of B30.9, states: “Slings made from materials or constructions other than those detailed in this Standard shall be used only in accordance with recommendations of the sling manufacturer.” We recognize that materials other than those covered exist now or may be available in 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 ddata is received it is considered and may be included in future addenda, Question (4): Does B30.9 explicitly prohibit the use of synthetic ropelwveb slings in environments ‘or under conditions ouside of the ranges listed in Chapters 9n4 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 (5): 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 it 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 fegulatory 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 oftheir employees1830.9 Interpretations Interpretation: 9-16 Subject: ASME B30.9b-1993, Slings Date Issued: June 20, 1995 Question (1): For chain slings, does the statement in para, 9-1.8.1(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 fof the inspection...” Reply (I): Yes. While the word “shall” does not appear in para. 9-1.8.1(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- 18.1(0)(2).” Question (2): IF the answer to Question (1) is to the affirmative, are there any reasons why the Committee has not required the same for Metal Mesh Slings, para. 9-3.8.1, 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 B30.9-1993, does not address inspection records. ‘The Committee has directed the B309 Subcommittee 10 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.830.9 Interpretations 9.17, 948 Interpretation: 9-17 Subject: ASME B30.9-1990, Slings, including B30.92-1991, B30.96-1993, and B30.9-1994 Date Issued: December 12, 1995 Question (1): Does the term “mechanical splice” mean, “a return loop flemish eye, or farmers spice that is completed by pressing (swaging) one or more metal sleeves over the rope juncture”? (Reference: Wire Rope Slings Users Manual (1990), page 11.) Reply (1): The term is already defined under the entry “splice, mechanical.” Question (2): If this is not the correct definition of “mechanical splice,” what is the meaning of this term? Reply (2): See Reply (1) Question (3): Will the definition of “mechanical splice” be included in a future issue of B30.9? Reply (3): See Reply (1) Question (4): While stings 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. Interpretation: 9-18 Subject: ASME B30.9a-1991, Section 9-2.5 — Sting 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.Mana1830.9 Interpretations Interpretation: 9-19 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 {0 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, Le, even plastic, could be used, as long as it conforms to eriteria 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 tel. 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 91.7, 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 in 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.492968830.9 Interpretations 9.20, 921 Interpretation: 9-20 Subject: ASME B30.6-1995, Derricks and ASME B30.9-1996, Slings Date Issued: December 23, 1997 Question (I): Is an apparatus held at its foundation by a brace, the brace held either on the surface of the ground and/or below the ground, a derrick as defined in Section 6.0.2.1? See Attachment Reply (1): No. The device portrayed does not fall under the scope of the B30 Standard, Question (2): In moving the load, if as the derrick releases the load for a free fall there is slack in the cable(s) securing the load (there is a lack of smooth transition in the arc of the radius of the cable), is this in violation of the Standards? Reply (2): Since Question (1) is beyond the scope of the B30 Standard, this question can not be responded to. Question (3): Is an assembly (see Attachment 2) which includes @ hamess and support straps connected to a ring at the end of @ lifting mechanism a sling as defined in Section 9.0.2? By way ‘of background, this assembly (Attachment 2) is connected to two cables to an A-frame tower, and the load is lifted by a third cable connected to a separate lift tower (see Attachment 1). Reply (3): Since Question (1) is beyond the scope of the B30 Standard, this question can not be responded to, Interpretation: 9-21 Subject: ASME B30.9-1996, Slings Date Issued: January 13, 1999 ‘Question (1): Paragraph 9.2.1.2(a) states: “Slings made of rope with 6 x 19 and 6 x 37 classification, and cable laid slings shall have a minimum clear length of rope 10 times the rope diameter between splices, sleeves, or end fittings.”” Does the minimum clear length of wire rope requirement of 10 times the rope diameter apply 10 tum-back eye slings constructed with 6 x 37 wire rope? Reply (1): Yes. Question (2); If the answer to Question (1) is yes, where should the clear length be measured from if a double swage is used t0 form the wm-back eye? Reply (2): The minimum clear length of wire rope is measured between the body side of the bases Of the final terminating splice or end fiting. In your schematic, the measurement of dimension B is, the value required in determining the clear length of rope.L LNSIWHOWLLY830.9 Interpretations ATTACHMENT 2922 30.9 Interpretations Interpretation: 9-22 Subject: ASME B30.9-1996, Slings Date Issued: January 15, 1999 Question: The equation given in para. 9-23(4) «0 determine the rated loads for wice rope slings configured in a bridle or basket arrangement is as follows rated load = single leg sling rated load! x number of legs x sine of minimum horizontal angle “Tables 3 through 9 In some industries, when using a general purpose 4-leg wire rope sling, the practice is to base the strength of the configuration upon two legs. The assumption made for not using all four legs is that the load may be carried by only two legs while the remaining two legs serve 10 “balance” the load, oes the sling's design factor account for any uncertainty in the distribution of load among the legs of @ general purpose 4-leg wire rope sling configuration? Reply: The design factor referenced within the B30.9 volume is used by the sling manufacturer when producing the sling and is not relevant to the end user when selecting the sling. It is in the B30,9 volume as a point of information. The design factors for slings are based upon years of satisfactory service established by organizations and manufacturers and adopted by the B30 Main Committee. They were adopted to take into account consideration factors such as dynamic loading, wear, and. corrosion ‘The distribution of the load among the legs is a rigging question, not one regarding the rated load calculation, ‘The rated load equations given in the B30.9 volume are based upon the characteristic properties of the sling material, and therefore, the equation will vary from Chapter to Chapter. In addressing your specific use of wire rope, the requirement of para, 9-2.3(4) indicates that the rated load for a 4-leg sling is 4 times the single leg rated load corrected for the minimum horizontal angle or for special nonsymmetrical loading. Nonsymmetrical loads are addressed under para. 9-2.9(aa) and states: “(aa) for multiple leg slings used with nonsymmetrical loads, an analysis by a qualified person should be performed to prevent overloading of any leg.” [le o50 el[- 050 —— s6.00*12 __} | Js mos ———+[ASME 830.9-2003 9:23, 9:20 Interpretation: 9-23 e Subject: ASME B30,9a-1991, Slings Date Issued: June 11, 1999 ‘Question (1): Paragraph 9-5.6.2, Inspection Records, states: “Written inspection records, utilizing, the identification for each sling as established by the user, should be kept for all slings. These records should show a description of the new sling and its condition on each periodic inspection.” Does this mean a serial number or other identifier unique to each sling? (An example is a power plant having many slings of the same type, rating, and manufacturer) Reply (1): The provisions of para. 95.6.2 indicate that a method of distinguishing individual slings, one from another, should be developed by the user. Individual serial numbers ot another unique identification method could fulfil this recommended practice. © ‘Question (2): Paragraph 9-5.1.6 requires permanent markings but does not mention a unique identifier for each sling. Is a unique identifier required for each sling? Reply (2): The items listed in paras. 9-5.1.6(a) through (d) list the mandatory identification requirements ofthe sling manufacturer. Any additional specific or unique identifier is not specified required of the sling manufacturer by this volume of the B30 Standard, Interpretation: 9-24 Subject: ASME B30.9-1996, Slings Date Issued: January 19, 2001 ‘Question: Paragraph 9-2.44 specifically requires individually testing multleg bridle slings to 4 specific number of times the vertical rated load of a single-leg sling of the same size, grade, oF construction of rope. What is the reason for this method in lieu of applying a proof load of 2 times the force of the combined legs as described for the master link to which the legs are connected? Reply: The requirements of para. 9-244 are that each individual component of the sling be subjected to the specified proof load for that component. The B30 Committee did not and does not intend to specify the actual method used to achieve this requirement. 7]