Securement Question

I have To go with JohnDeere on this, it doesn't say anything about securing it to itself. If that's what you interpret it to be then so be it but that isn't what the regulation states.

 

I agree with JohnDeere on this as well.

I am perplexed at the need to chain down the ripper on a dozer, or the dozer itself for that matter. If the punishment that the ripper and dozer take during the course of their intended purpose doesn't separate them from the machine, then there is no way that they are coming off while being hauled. And, why is it legal to put just one chain on a dozer that pulls to just one side? Same with a loader bucket. I put two chains on the dozer blade opposing each other, so at least I am not tempting it to move sideways.

With the new excavators and the swing lock that is automatically applied upon shut down I don't see the necessity in chaining the boom so much, but I have seen older machines that I wouldn't trust the house lock, so I don't mind chaining the bucket on an excavator.

Laws not withstanding, crane boom movement scares me far more than excavator buckets. Even if they are dogged or cradled there is usually enough play for them to move a little bit, and that little bit of movement can become quite noticeable in a turn. Structurally one would have to be careful tying down a boom as damage to the boom could easily occur, so whenever I have hauled one I put more pressure on the block hook than is required to just prevent the block from moving.

And while I'm on my rant here, how can two chains that go "over, around, or through" a piece of equipment possibly be equal to 4 chains of equal WLL in a direct tie situation that are positioned so that the they pull in opposing directions. I'll take an excavator on an icy deck chained four corners long before one that has two chains over the track frame, attached to the trailer on both ends. If the weight of the machine doesn't provide enough friction to keep it from sliding sideways, then adding half the weight in WLL of down force only isn't going to make much difference. Anyone that has every loaded an excavator on an icy deck that isn't completely level knows what I mean.

Sorry, I am venting - my apologies - rant over!

 

So four 3/8 chains (WLL of 6,600 lbs) won't hold down a 30k telehandler?

 

Anything on wheels or tracks that weighs over 10,000lbs is to be secured with minimum 4 points of securement, which on most vehicles and equipment would be 1 per corner which would be a direct tie down. Direct tie downs only get 1/2 their WLL. So a 3/8 grade 70 chains WLL of 6600 would be cut to 3300 per tie down. 3300 x 4 = 13,200lbs WLL. 1,800lbs short of the aggregate WLL limits required by federal law

 

This is why on the heavier telehandlers, they have holes to chain down in the middle. I think they start to have them on the 10k lift capacity ones.

You can either put one chain across the middle in an indirect or two directs on each side.

 

Federal law, specifically 393.106

https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/393.106

(d) Aggregate working load limit for tiedowns. The aggregate working load limit of tiedowns used to secure an article or group of articles against movement must be at least one-half times the weight of the article or group of articles. The aggregate working load limit is the sum of:

(1) One-half the working load limit of each tiedown that goes from an anchor point on the vehicle to an anchor point on an article of cargo;

(2) One-half the working load limit of each tiedown that is attached to an anchor point on the vehicle, passes through, over, or around the article of cargo, and is then attached to an anchor point on the same side of the vehicle.

(3) The working load limit for each tiedown that goes from an anchor point on the vehicle, through, over, or around the article of cargo, and then attaches to another anchor point on the other side of the vehicle.

 

It's bureaucratic nonsense but that's why you only have to tie down to half the weight of the load.