Heavy Haul Securement Advise

No.

 

Question: your pulling a 40-55 ton RGN mainly hauling tall & wide with the occasional over weight. The lighter tall & wide can be tied down with 3/8 chains but need 1/2 chains for the OW stuff. Instead of carrying 12 3/8 chains & 10-12 1/2 chains could you use 4 1/2 chains & 8 3/8 chains on an over weight load that you would normally use 8-10 1/2 chains?

Would it be better just to carry a dozen of each size?

Please excuse my ignorance, trying to learn.

 

You can use 3/8 chain you don't have to use 1/2". On my 55 ton I carry 8 3' 1/2" chains the rest are 3/8.

 

I'm sorry to tell you, this chain counts for nothing!
Yes, I am aware that almost zero DOT officers will know it, and almost none will cite you for it becaus they quite frankly aren't aware of the actual reg's regarding this practice.



A binder that is attached directly from cargo to trailer/load security devise (D-ring in this case) has NO SHOCK ABSORBING CAPABILITIES and is therefore not counted in load security aggregate load calculations. Binders, chain hooks, D-rings, frames, et al, are constructed of forged or temper hardened materials that have no "stretch factor" and therefore cannot dissipate a shock load safely or properly without significant risk of failure. There MUST BE G70 chain between each component.
Contrary to popular belief, grade 70 transport chain is engineered to "stretch" and will absorb said shock loads and safely dissipate the energy without significant failure risks. Other grades of chain DO NOT have the metallurgical makeup to properly do this.
I know the popular argument, I've heard it countless times, grade 100 has so much higher ratings and my rigging supply blah blah blah. If such is the case, simply asked "Why won't any Red Seal Crane Operator use Grade 70, even at its lower rating, to lift with?"
Simple, G70 is NOT lifting chain, it will stretch and they cannot properly calculate this factor. And G100 IS lifting chain, will not stretch, and IS NOT security chain. G100 CAN NOT absorb and dissipate shock load sufficiently. Cranes don't shock load their rigging during lifting, trucks hit thousands of shock loads (bumps) daily.
Yes, I've heard the argument. No I won't listen to it. Yes I have read, and I actually do understand the engineering technical data behind it, which is why I won't listen to or argue it.
Despite the fact that this is an unpopular view, doesn't mean it's incorrect, and it peeves some people off...but sorry, it's not incorrect.

In the other thread, @johndeere4020 showed the BSL 80/50/20 rule. That is NOT a North American wide rule.
We need to understand that Canadian reg's are much more stringent than US reg's regarding load security. Canadian reg's take into account cold climates that affect load security equipment in detrimental ways. US reg's, are actually an adopted variant based on Canadian reg's without cold climate "safety factors", Canadian and Norse countries are the authority on the subject. For those that aren't aware, my uncle is one of the leading developers of the North American Load Security Standards. He was/is the lead engineer/technical advisor, so when I have questions, needless to say I get the "authority on the situation" answers to said questions.
WLL (Working Load Limit) is the designation of any particular load securement device, and it is calculated at 1/3 of breaking strength.
In Canada, the 80/50/20 rule is NOT CALCULATED AT BREAKING STRENGTH, it IS CALCULATED AT WLL! The US standard is BSL (Breaking Strength Limit), and does not have a cold climate safety factor. If you are a cross border open deck transporter, you had best understand this.
The fact that the US has perverted the standards to accept BSL in place of WLL pisses him off, as it invalidates impact force safety factors.
I use WLL exclusively. I DO NOT compromise on it. I have had a head on collision. Chains, yes multiple, broke during that head on collision. My load didn't move. How many people do you know that can say that?

 

You can use any chains you like, so long as the aggregate (total added up of all load security devices) limit meets the requirements of the 80/50/20 rule.
The reason most HHers use bigger chain is less quantity to meet said requirements. However there is no point in using rigging that is out-rating the attachment points. ie; if your anchor pints are rated at 7000lbs, there's no point hooking an 11,300 lbs rated chain to it, because the LSD always reverts to the lowest rated component and that chain is now reduced to 7k.
In the pic of the chassis I have on my trailer in the other thread I have 16 - 1/2" chains. I could have used 5/16" if I wanted, but I would have needed around 36 of them to meet reg's. At some point you run out of places to hook to and bigger makes more sense.

 

I'm assuming your drunk, so what the heck are you talking about? Can you show me any rule that says a binder can't attach directly from the load to the trailer? No you can't, that's probably the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time and because it doesn't exist. And your self absorbed arrogant I know everything because I'm the only that's ever hauled a big load attitude is over the top. You wrong by period, you don't know more than the engineers and metallurgists at Crosby, I don't care who your uncle is and and I don't care about your antidotal examples of you load securement.

You and your rookie buddy think that acting like A- holes all the time make you something special but it doesn't. You do your thing and continue to profess your greatness to those who believe it and I'll do mine. But if it's a fight your looking for I can hold my own. That my suggestion.

 

Can you post a regulation or ANYTHING from the FMCSA that says that? Maybe that's why no dot officer will give out citations for that, because it's not a violation...

 

After this same discussion (G70 vs G100) in a previous thread I contacted Crosby regarding the use of G100 for load securement. They cited FMCSA regs regarding WLL and grade/size of chain, and said that G100 was perfectly acceptable for load securement.

 

I had an interesting and lengthy conversation with them about it at Con Expo and was assured that it was perfectly acceptable for use as load securement. They laughed at the idea that it was "more brittle" or that it wouldn't take a "shock" as well as grade 70. My assumption is that their engineers are pretty sharp but that's just me.