load securement violations no longer part of cargo BASIC

Yeah I have always been told that i had to cover the full weight so i knew how much i needed for the stuff we hauled but when i read how to get the full WLL i was like s### im doing it wrong. But since its half of the weight im still doing it right. Just glad you clarified that for me.

Thanks again.

 

I'm not perfect. I make my mistakes, which is why I usually quote regs, but not always.

 

Just when you think you have it figured, they throw another curve at you.

Somewhere in the regs, it says you have to secure to withstand .8g in the forward direction and .5g side to side and backwards. So in other words, as I understand it, on a 10,000 lb piece, you need to secure for 8,000 lbs forward and 5,000 lbs side to side and backwards.

 

The .8g and .5g refer to the "Breaking Strength" of a tie down assembly, not the "Working Load Limit". Easy to confuse.
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?reg=393.102
(a) Performance criteria'(1) Breaking strength. Tiedown assemblies (including chains, wire rope, steel strapping, synthetic webbing, and cordage) and other attachment or fastening devices used to secure articles of cargo to, or in, commercial motor vehicles must be designed, installed, and maintained to ensure that the maximum forces acting on the devices or systems do not exceed the manufacturer's breaking strength rating under the following conditions, applied separately:
(i) 0.8 g deceleration in the forward direction;
(ii) 0.5 g acceleration in the rearward direction; and
(iii) 0.5 g acceleration in a lateral direction.

When using WLL, the following applies.

(2) Working Load limit. Tiedown assemblies (including chains, wire rope, steel strapping, synthetic webbing, and cordage) and other attachment or fastening devices used to secure articles of cargo to, or in, commercial motor vehicles must be designed, installed, and maintained to ensure that the forces acting on the devices or systems do not exceed the working load limit for the devices under the following conditions, applied separately:
(i) 0.435 g deceleration in the forward direction;
(ii) 0.5 g acceleration in the rearward direction; and
(iii) 0.25 g acceleration in a lateral direction.

 

No they do not. There is nothing in the specific Light Vehicle or Heavy Vehicle regs, stating such a requirement.
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?reg=393.128 and
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?reg=393.130

393.106(c)(1) does state that any commodity that is likely to roll, must have cradles or chocks. Those 3 tanks that I just hauled, did fit that description. A vehicle that has the parking brake applied, or is placed in gear with a manual transmission, or park with an automatic transmission, is not likely to roll.

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?reg=393.106
(c) Cargo placement and restraint. (1) Articles of cargo that are likely to roll must be restrained by chocks, wedges, a cradle or other equivalent means to prevent rolling. The means of preventing rolling must not be capable of becoming unintentionally unfastened or loose while the vehicle is in transit.

 

I guess my point is you get different results from the WLL method than you do from the breaking strength method. You can get away with fewer chains if using the breaking strength method and still be following the rules as far as I can tell.

 

No sir, you still must use the correct number of chains or straps to meet the minimum working load limit calculations. The .8g, and .5g standards apply to how the securement is applied. For instance, an 8,000 pound coil, loaded suicide in coil racks, would only need 1 5/16th gr70 chain (4700 lb WLL), to meet the minimum WLL calculation. However, I don't believe that one chain could not meet the .8g deceleration, .5g acceleration rearward and .5g lateral acceleration test, all at the same time. So, all calculations must be used, for proper securement.
Also notice that the conditions are applied separately.

 

OK let's go through it then. I understand we need to secure in all directions, but for this example, lets just do a 10,000 lb machine in the forward direction.

WLL METHOD:
10,000 lb x .435 = 4,350 lbs of securement required (forward). If using 3/8" Gr 70 chain with a WLL of 6600 lbs and the direct tie down method, you need 2 chains right?

BREAKING STRENGTH METHOD:
10,000 lb x .8 = 8,000 lbs of securement required (forward). If using 3/8" Gr 70 chain with a braking strength of 26,000 lbs and the direct tie down method, you need only 1 chain (forward) right?

The 26,000 breaking strength is so much higher than the 6600 WLL, using the higher .8 g doesn't make up for it.

Then to make matters worse, the Direct tie down method reduces the WLL by half but it doesn't reduce the breaking strength at all. Or at least I don't find where it says that.

 

Thats what I thought too. According to LS tho, all rolling stick MUST have the wheels chocked. I think it's just a company policy. I don't bother anyways

 

Confusing, ain't it? Keep in mind, most inspectors will look at WLL and the number of tie downs to satisfy the weight, first and not even think about the breaking strength.