Tarping Steel Coils

Discussion in 'Flatbed Trucking Forum' started by Gentlemanfarmer, Jun 16, 2012.

  1. freedhardwoods

    freedhardwoods Light Load Member

    244
    127
    Feb 4, 2011
    SW IN
    0
    The reg you referred to does give a specific number and you keep repeating an unspecific answer. I never said or implied that you had any numbers in your response, which is the whole point! I know where the big, shiny letter button is too.

    I thought you were trying to contribute information. Excuse me for interrupting your rambling.



    When and if I have time
    , I will try to explain in plain english, the geometry and physics of the down force of the straps in the picture and the coil "squashing"
    & chain breaking in the video. (yes, the coil is getting "squashed" & no, it has nothing to do with the chains breaking point)

    If anyone else has learned basic physics and wants to explain before I get to it, more power to ya.
     
  2. Truckers Report Jobs

    Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds

    Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.

  3. Jfaulk99

    Jfaulk99 Road Train Member

    2,914
    1,648
    May 16, 2009
    Couch
    0
    Absolutely!
     
  4. CAXPT

    CAXPT Road Train Member

    2,435
    9,053
    Feb 10, 2008
    Michigan
    0
    Autocar, I remember now why I use WLL instead of MBS for computations. :D

    freedhardwoods, I love a challenge, so here goes. Your statement, like many truckers, is based on A section. The reason it's important to learn the FMCSR's (green and white book) is because the regulations have overlapping applicability. For instance, the metal coils section §393.120 you are referencing is an example of a commodity-specific rule, that can only supersede the general requirements of § 393.106What are the general requirements for securing articles of cargo? when additional requirements are given for a commodity listed. This doesn't mean instead of the general requirements it means, additional. (i.e. through the eye in this coil securement case)

    The section(s) you'll find your answer(s) in are § 393.106(a), (b), (c) and (d)

    Especially note section (d) that specifies the types of tiedowns and their value with regard to meeting the "must be at least one-half times the weight of the article" and you'll see that you get to use the whole value of the WLL for a chain that goes from one side of the trailer to the other, or through the eye for our purposes. So for a 5,000 lb coil, the 2 would be enough for forward and rearward restraint according to the regs, but the heavier the coil, the more chains required and those will still be subject to this following section:

    ---emphasis/underlining added


    Now, don't forget, there is also another section that puts further requirements on the computations. § 393.102 What are the minimum performance criteria for cargo securement devices and systems?
    So, this means the one chain restraining the forward movement has to be able to restrain that 5,000 lbs coil by not exceeding the WLL of each device by .435 g deceleration forward, which for a 6500 lbs WLL of an anchor point would be 2827.5, since this is more than the required half of the weight of the article to be secured in aggregate (per §393.106 (d)), as long as the remaining chains and binders are capable of the same or better WLL's for this direction. this is the only chain minimally required by the regs. Add the chain for the rearward restraint and you have the minimum, until you notice that §393.102 (b) points out that you have to add at least one more chain to the minimum of 2 for the coil to control upward movement of 20% of the article weight on a flatbed. (not contained within structure, and no, a conestoga is not considered a structure for this purpose of coil securement.)

    This brings the total minimum count of chains to 3, and that's just for a 5,000 lb coil, and all these minimums I've based on at least grade 70 chain/binders and anchor points rated at 6500 lb WLL for an anchor point and 6600 lb WLL for 3/8" chains. Grade 30, although initially meeting minimum standards to do the job, means recalculating everything for the different pieces and determining the true "weakest link" in the setup....and I don't know of any one that wants chains that are weaker then their binders.

    That said, looking at that demonstration, it occurred to me, that maybe they were using Grade 30 chains, and as I watched their meter (thanks for that youtube link btw), I noticed where the breaking point was. First the actual meter isn't completely visible because of the handle in the way, which prevents us from accurately being able to tell what the guage reading measurements were. It was either "X=100", "X=1000", etc, couldn't tell. Also, the scale to read wasn't clear either as the inside scale may have been a metric equivalent to the outside scale, or a subcount etc.

    Assuming, the outside scale was "X=100" and the inside scale was a subguage of "X=1000" it looked like the first chain was breaking at 2,265 lbs which is close to Grade 30 3/8" (they looked like) WLL of 2,650 lbs. So the video only raised more questions than it thought it was answering. In addition, the "coil" was a welded reinforced drum with no edge protection for the chains (a major violation on a real coil), and it had a hydraulic cylinder with constant and increasing pressure. The only reason the other chains over the top didn't pop, is because they were longer and had more elasticity because of that length.... but because of that longer length and elasticity, they really aren't holding anything down either because they don't actually get engaged by the pump, until the first chain snaps.

    Sorry, like the other guy said, at $640 a set up, I'll buy extra chains and over chain the dang thing, by the time it walks through all those chains, the truck would have long since stopped. :D
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2012
    Shardrk and Autocar Thank this.
  5. Les2

    Les2 Road Train Member

    5,150
    2,288
    Jul 25, 2008
    kicked back in my lazyboy...
    0
    Freedhardwoods are you trying to defend that stupid contraption?
     
  6. freedhardwoods

    freedhardwoods Light Load Member

    244
    127
    Feb 4, 2011
    SW IN
    0
    I wasn't looking for the answer for myself. I was trying to get some of these hardheads to see that despite what they claim, they don't know everything. You posted excerpts from the entire article that I already read and linked to for others to read.

    Maybe your detailed explanation will help some here but the ones that could really stand to learn something will probably ridicule you like they do everyone else so they can feel important in their own mind.

    It's easy to see why so many from here left for another forum. I just show up here every once in a while to see if anything has changed. Not any better yet.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2012
  7. freedhardwoods

    freedhardwoods Light Load Member

    244
    127
    Feb 4, 2011
    SW IN
    0
    I wouldn't buy it and do not intend to use anything like it, but the physics behind it are sound.

    Ridiculing something you don't understand doesn't make you smarter nor does it make you look smarter. It actually works the other way.
     
  8. CAXPT

    CAXPT Road Train Member

    2,435
    9,053
    Feb 10, 2008
    Michigan
    0
    Actually, until you just mentioned it, I didn't follow your link, and when I did just now, I found basically an incomplete bullet-point version of the actual Regulations, which is what I gave with specific subsections, paragraphs, sections, etc., the same ones the DOT has to specify when they give us a violation.

    For example, the section you refer us to, doesn't have the full language of the different tiedown types and their values, in fact it's missing the reference I make to the 100% WLL value for an indirect connect.

    Doesn't bother me. When I'm wrong I can admit it and thank the writer, for the enlightenment without any attitude and plenty of hot sauce to go with my crow. :D

    Have a nice day.

    Update: I just checked out the coded reference to your link and it looks like it was part of a mass document scan, and was published in 2003, which means it doesn't have the updated references and rules like the links I gave you, which is from the Final Rules of the Federal Code of Regulations on the FMCSA site of which sections are updated as the year goes by.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2012
  9. CAXPT

    CAXPT Road Train Member

    2,435
    9,053
    Feb 10, 2008
    Michigan
    0
  10. CAXPT

    CAXPT Road Train Member

    2,435
    9,053
    Feb 10, 2008
    Michigan
    0
    Okay, it looks like you fixed the link, I found it anyway while checking the other threads.
     
  • Truckers Report Jobs

    Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds

    Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.