What is the reasoning behind WLL requirements?

In your chaining a machine example with 4 chains (one each corner) it is not just the 2 chains keeping it from moving forward. All 4 chains are pulling down to the trailer floor holding it also by friction. Just like how a strap on the top of a pallet keeps it from moving in any direction.

 

Sometimes more is just more. It isn’t always better.

 

It takes less time to throw a couple of chains or straps than it does to try to explain to some DOT guy why you didn't.

 

Maybe so, but the blanket statement of more is better isn’t necessarily true. By that logic why not wear a helmet with your seat belt.

 

Because you can’t get a true ‘facepalm’ during the day when you see ‘stuff’ with the helmet in the way.

 

HP is correct. Now in most cases, the Bible doesn’t specify whether we use direct or indirect. Can you imagine if it did?

The Bible is the guidelines for those who need law (that means you, Stupid) because there are people who would put 2 point securement on your 19k dozer.

For the most part, stick and brick haulers stick with indirect securement and OSOW guys prefer direct. Why does direct securement only get 50% the WLL of indirect? Because without the securement pulling in the opposite direction, it is useless.
EXAMPLE
Heavy equipment secured with 4 points of securement all pulling toward the rear of the trailer. The load is only half secured. In an accident or hard braking or bumpy road or on a curve, the load is going to shift.

What HP is saying is that all securement on a load should serve a purpose. Throwing all your securement on a load does not mean that the load is properly secured. It may be secured according to the Bible, but not everyone going to church is a believer, is he?

 

Very diplomatically put.

 

It didn't take long before I started using direct securement on any piece of equipment with wheels or tracks. And I don't even do os/ow... yet.

 

It’s why open deck trucking is a thinking man’s trucking. You have to figure out how to keep the load from shifting. If the load shifts, YOU LOSE.

 

What's this about half WLL for direct tiedowns? That's the first I've heard of it. What I'm given to understand is that indirect securement, ie. rail to rail, is allowed to be half the load in WLL, but direct tie downs must reach the full load weight in WLL. Is this just a more complicated way of stating it?