Process and Human Factors Engineering
line
Research and Technology 2002
 
General-Purpose Rigging – Annual Load-Testing Process Enhancement
 

KSC utilizes approximately 2,000 individual pieces of ground support lifting hardware that require annual load tests (nondestructive stress tests performed by loading the hardware and monitoring for deformation) in accordance with NASA documentation. This hardware includes all general-purpose rigging such as synthetic web slings, wire-rope, alloy steel chain slings, shackles, and d-rings controlled by individual shops or logistics. Historically, the United Space Alliance (USA) Heavy Equipment organization, located at KSC, conducted these load tests at its shop. The maintenance date was indicated on a dog tag attached to each item. The shop supervisors and technicians were responsible for ensuring the items were tested. Hardware items whose load tests were past due could not be used for processing and were verified through the Quality department. USA departments were using a variety of workflow processes to accomplish the load test and return the item to service, and little communication occurred between organizations.


An intense 4-day process improvement team investigation was initiated in October 2001 to analyze the process, identify problem areas, and develop countermeasures. The team documented the process flow used by the majority of the organizations’ operations (figure 1), interpreted historical data, and found the average cycle time (from request for load testing to return of item) was 54 days with a 45-day standard deviation. Hardware could be tested much more quickly based on a processing emergency, but approval for expedited load testing was difficult to obtain. In response to long out-of-use periods, shops purchased hardware in duplicate and sometimes triplicate. Hardware was periodically lost or misplaced during the process, and tracking a request through the system was virtually impossible.


Though historical information was scant, the majority of items deemed to have failed load testing did so during a visual inspection performed before the actual load test. The team investigated the load test requirements in NASA-STD-8719.9 and compared them to the “KSC List of Nonload Test Slings” in KHB 1710.2. Approval was obtained from the NASA KSC Lifting Devices and Equipment Manager to submit requests for addition to the exempt list.


The process improvement team recommended a new streamlined workflow (figure 2) and the following measures that were adopted and are nearing final implementation:

  • Each organization will submit a list for approval to the “KSC List of Nonload Test Slings.”
  • USA Heavy Equipment will perform annual inspections at the owner’s location in lieu of the load test and eliminate transportation.
  • An off-the-shelf software package (MAXIMO) will automate the maintenance recall and track the visual inspection process. MAXIMO will initiate a work order directly to Heavy Equipment 30 days prior to the expiration date of each item.
  • The maintenance dog tag on the hardware will indicate the item as exempt from load testing and will reflect a visual inspection date (figure 3).
 

Sling and Shackle Bearing New Maintenance Dog Tags

Figure 3. Sling and Shackle Bearing New Maintenance Dog Tags

The table depicts performance statistics of the old process compared to the new process.

Old Process
New Process
Date Range for Data
11/20/98 to 9/10/01
N/A
Number of Requests per Year
60
20
Minimum Cycle Time (days)
1
1
Maximum Cycle Time (days)
196
1
Averave Cycle Time (days)
54
1
Standard Deviation (days) (High variability shows process out of control)
45
1
Average Time Equipment Out of Service (days)
54
1
Approximate USA Labor Hours per Year
720
110

Table 1. Analysis of Old Versus New Process

Key accomplishments:

  • Over 600 labor hours will be saved per year across several organizations.
  • Using the same expiration date for all of the items in a single location streamlines the inspection process and requires fewer inspectors.
  • Onsite inspection prevents the possibility of lost hardware and dramatically reduces out-of-use time, thereby eliminating the need to stock excess equipment.
  • Paper support requests and load-testing documentation are eliminated.
  • The process is standardized for all organizations.


Contact: M.C. Glenn (Malcolm.Glenn-1@ksc.nasa.gov), PH-L1, (321) 861-4128
Participating Organization: United Space Alliance (K.P. Warren [team lead], J.R. Ewald, K.D. VanDyke, J.L. Bisbey, C. McCombs, T.L. Henderson, D.C. Smith, G. Garrett, L.A. Tripps, M. Chavez, and P. Cureton)

Old Workflow ProcessOld Workflow Process

Figure 1. Old Workflow Process

 

New Workflow Process

Figure 2. New Workflow Process

     
line
Home
Biological Sciences
Range Technologies
Spaceport Structures and Materials
CCM
Fluid System Technologies
Process and Human Factors Eng