CHAPTER § Vehicles on Ro-Ro Vessels In 1991 a Code of Practice was published by HMSO, London, entitled; Roll-on/Roll-off Ships - Stowage and Securing of Vehicles. There have been a number of addenda and adjustments to the text since then, and the Fourth Impression, dated 1997, is the current version for reference urposcs. It includes the standards developed by IMO, and provides guidance and information on safe procedures to be followed t0 reduce the risks to persons, ships and - by extension - to the vehicles and cargo contents themselves. The U.K. Health and Safety Executive were also consulted during the Code's preparation. The full text can be purchased at The Stationery Office Bookshops in London, Birmingham, Manchester, Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh; or by fax order t0 0171 873 8200, price £9.50 net. Some of the recommendations contained therein are dealt with hereunder, and will be referred to as the 1997 Code. Also, reference is made herein to the Department of Transport Code of Practice Safety of Loads on Vehicles and the Swedish Transport Rescarch Commission (TFK) report Securing Goods on Semi-Trailer, 1986. For the parts of those publications reproduced herein, due thanks and acknowledgements are extended Vehicle Definitions A vehicle is defined as a vehicle with wheels or a track laying vehicle. A flatbed trailer is defined as a flat topped, open sided trailer or semi-trailer and includes a roll- trailer and a draw-bar trailer. (See Figs.5.01 to 5.05, below.) Sem-rater without Semi-traler with sideboards sideboards (ropsides) or (nd tailboard tailboord Fig.5.01 Fig.5.02 Equipped with a structure to ‘supporta hood caver which provects agains all forms of precigieaion that does not have any cargo securing function Fig.5.05 Van body trailers: The load-carrying part comprises « playform and hecalboard or bulthead. The platform is provided with fixed side walls and roof and has doors at the rear. Yfthe van body i tobe used asa cempletecargo-tlecking carrier, apre- Condition s that each sidewall can withstand a (oad that is applied and cisinibuted uniformty and perpendicular to the side ofthe body, and which is 40 per cent ofthe semi-srater's maxorum load weigh. (Courtesy: TFE) The Neutical Institute 109 ‘Lashing & Securing of Deck Cargoes"- 2002A freight vehicle is defined as a goods vehicle, flat-bed trailer, road train, articulated road train, combination of freight vehicles, or a tank vehicle. (See Figs.5.06, 5.07 and 5.08, below.) Fig.5.06 Fiuly.enclosed goods vehicle Fig.5.07 Draw-bar combination Fig.5.08 Drow.bar road rain A semi-trailer is defined as a trailer which is designed to be coupled to a semi-trailer towing vehicle and to impose a substantial part of its total weight on the towing vehicle. (See Fig.5.09, below.) O O Fig.5.09 (Counesy: Commercial Motor/Leyland DAP) The Neuticel Instvute 110 “Lashing & Securing of Deck Cangves"~ 2002A tank vehicle is defined as a tank which is rigidly and permanently attached to the vehicle during all normal operations of loading. discharging, and transport, and is neither filled nor discharged on board and is driven on hoard by its own wheels. (Fig.5.10, for instance. ) Fig.5.10 Under the section relating to suitability for transport by sea, the Code of Practice advises that shippers, forwarding agents, road hauliers, and any other party presenting road vehicles for shipment, should appreciate that vehicles can be subjected to forces of great magnitude, particularly in the transverse direction and especially in adverse weather conditions. It is of importance for them t9 ensure that a. Vehicles must be in sound structural condition, free of defects likely to affect their structural strength, and in good working order if they are to be driven on to or off the ship. b. Freight vehicles of more than 3.5 tonnes must be provided with an adequate number of accessible securing points of sufficient strength, located so as to ensure effective restraint of the freight vehicle by the lashings. (This refers to lashing points on the vehicle which will be used to secure the vehicle to the deck of the ship.) c. — Semi-trailers are of adequate strength to withstand the loadings imposed by the use of wrestles or similar devices, Semi-trailers should have, within the area of the king- pin, sufficient strength and space for a trestle to be located to allow safe storage prior to unhitching of the semi-trailer towing vehicle. The area of trestie location should be suitably marked on both sides 4. Supporting legs on semi-trailers which are specifically designed to supportthe semi- trailer during sea transport are clearly marked. e, Where jacks are used on a freight vehicle, the jacking-up positions on the chassis are strengthened and clearly marked f Refrigerated freight vehicles of more than 3.5 tonnes, with flush insulated undersides, should have jacking points especially fited and marked to avoid damage to insulation. g. Freight vehicles designed to transport loads likely to have an adverse effect on their stability, such as hanging meat, have a means of neutralising the suspension system. The Nautical fasiute ud ‘ashing & Securing of Deck Cargoes"= 2002h. Vehicles are provided with an effective braking system. i. Freight vehicles are provided with an adequate number of securing points to enable the cargo to be adequately secured to them so as to withstand the forces which may arise during the sea transport. j. Loads carried on or within freight vehicles or containers are secured in a manner that will prevent them from moving when they are subjected to the worst conditions likely to be encountered at sea. The publication, "Code of Practice, Safety of Loads on Vehicles", obtainable from any Stationery Office Bookshop, provides guidance as to how loads should be secured on vehicles. (See, also, IMO/ILO Guidelines for Packing Cargo in Freight Containers or Vehicles). k. Each freight vehicle is provided with documentation, to indicate its gross weight and any precautions which may have 10 be observed during sea transport. 1. All dangerous goods, including those contained within groupage loads, are fully declared m. The dangerous goods placards (large labels) required for the sea transport of dangerous goods on vehicles are clearly visible on the outside of the vehicle. n. ‘The master receives adequate notice containing information about special vehicles, e.g. tack laying vehicles, high-sided freight vehicles, earth moving plant, low loaders, and freight vehicles carrying livestock; and ©, The recommendations in Merchant Shipping Notice No.M.1433 are followed regarding fuel in tanks.Gee, also, MS Notice M 1437 of 1990 headed "Portable tanks, Road tank Vehicles and Rail tank Wagons for the carriage by sea of Liquid Dangerous Goods and Liquified Gases") ‘The Code of Practice provides guidance on specific types of loads on freight vehicles. For instance, cargo carried on flat-bed trailers should be effectively secured, preferably with chains or suitable webbing fitied with tightening devices. Empty trailers carried on semi-trailers should be adequately secured to the carriage semi-trailer. Steel plates, girders, and laminated boards will, if not properly secured, readily slide and may penetrate the sides of a freight vehicle or container. Such items require strong securing arrangements. They should be located in positions where they can do the least damage to the ship's internal structure and fittings if the securing arrangement fails. Pipes, cylinders, and similarly shaped units of cargo require special attention, One of the most sucessful methods of securing is the use of a pipe-rack, nesting frame, or cradle in association with chain lashings and tightening devices. Where there is doubt that a vehicle complies with the foregoing provisions, the master may, at his discretion, refuse to accept the vehicle for shipment, and the following aspects are worth noting, The Nautical Insitute 112 ‘Lashing & Securing of Deck Cargoes”~ 2002Curtain-Sided Semi-Trailers on Ro-Ro Vessels, ‘The carriage of high-sided, curtain-sided semi-trailers on ro-ro vessels is, within United Kingdom waters, a phenomenon almostexclusively experienced on the Irish sea crossings, apparently because the mocorway bridges on United Kingdom and Ireland roads are generally higher than those experienced on European autobahns, thereby allowing in the U.K, a higher vehicle to be operated in anormal environment. It is accepted that the design concept of curtain-sided semi-trailers is applied to vehicles operating on European roads and elsewhere, but as the overall height of the vehicles in use in such countries is generally considerably lower than those found on United Kingdom road nesworks, similar difficulties are not currently encountered, although the situation may change in the future. Nevertheless, the following comments have international implications. To fully understand the problem with curtain-sided semi-trailers it is necessary to look at their design concept. Traditionally, loads placed onto open platform semi-tailers needed to be secured {in place/covered and protected against the weather. ‘This was usually carried out by the driver roping and sheeting, in some instances with up to four sheets which, particularly in high wind situations, was both difficult and ime-consuming. (See Fig.5.11.) Fig.5.11 Three sheets used to protect a vehicle load (Adapted from "Sajery of Loads on Vehicles" HMSO.) In order to reduce the time and effort necessary to secure and cover cargo on vehicles, a curtain- sided semi-trailer was introduced, consisting of a platformed trailer fitted with a solid forward bulkhead (generally fibreglass-covered (0 reduce weight), a light perspex roof, and two rear doors similar in design to those fitted to ISO containers, although of much lighter construction. The sides of the box thus created are closed by tarpaulin curtains hanging on the equivalent of curtain rails and free to slide from end to end of the trailer. The bottom edges of the curtains arc held in place by simple webbing-and-nook tensioning devices, A full side-curtain on a 407t semi-trailer can generally be unhooked and slid to one side in a matter of minutes, thereby reducing considerably the turn-round time of a delivery/ pick-up vehicle. (Sce Fig.5.12.) The Nawtiea! institute 113 ‘Lashing & Securing of Deck Cargoes"~ 2002Fig 5.12 Curtains semi-traiter (Courtesy: "Sofety of Loads on Vehicles” HMSO.) In an effort t0 prevent sideways movement of cargo loaded onto the semi-treiler, webbing restraining straps are attached to a central ridge-bar running the full length of the unit just beneath the centreline of the roof, Generally of webbing, such restraints are fitted with a simple hook to allow them to be hooked ovér the edge of the semi-trailer platform if desired, together with tensioning devices of one form or another. Despite the recommendations contained in the Code of Practice, there is a noticeable trend for cargo to be placed on curtain-sided semi-trailers secured by no more than the tensioned curtain sides. Indeed, there are publications which instruct heavy goods vehicle drivers to the effect that, unless the loads are abnormally heavy or awkward, securing of cargo within curtain-sided semi-trailers is not required. This is contrary to all common-sense and sound practice, contrary to the requirements of the Road Traffic Act 1991, Section 404, and has created a number of otherwise avoidable casualties Indeed, the Code of Safe Practice for Safety of Loads On Road Vehicles clearly states that, with the exception of very light loads, all cargo should be securely fastened to the vehicle for normal road transit During recent years various difficulties have been experienced with cargo incorrectly or inadequately secured within curtain-sided semi-trailcrs resulting in, at best, movement and, at Worst, capsize rotation of waiters, damage to other cargo, and delays to the carrying vessel while the problems are sorted out, Initially, such trailers were presented with no securing to the cargo but, as recommendations that the cargo should be secured to the trailer were acted upon, a secondary problem developed. The Nauteat insince 4 Lashing & Securing of Deck Cargoes"~ 2002‘The restraining siraps referred to on the previous page, attached as they are to the centre-line ridge pole directly beneath the roof, transfer a substantial portion of the cargo weight to a point higher above the trailer bed than the cargo’s natural centre of gravity in conditions of heavy rolling; a situation which has caught ships’ officers unaware, and which has resulted in trailers tipping over. In the Code of Practice it is suggested that vehicles with high centres of gravity or unstable loads should be stowed in positions of minimal roll, Unfortunately, the predominance of curtain-sided semi-trailers being handied on certain sea routes means that such suggestions cannot readily be accommodated. One way round the difficulty would be for a return to the original design concept of curiain-sided semi-trailcrs, where the cargo is secured downwards to the platform of the vehicle as it would have been for an open vehicle; the curtain sides being used for their original intention of providing no more than a weather-proof cover. Itis unlikely, however, that the curtain- sided semi-trailer will be readily abandoned, and so ships’ officers should be cautious. In line with the problem of securing normal cargoes, ie, palletised units, etc, there is an increasing difficulty encountered with regard to the usage of curtain-sided semi-trailers for the carriage of bulk cargoes such as bark, sawdust, etc. In such circumstances, the load is blown-loaded or gravity-fed into the trailers with lateral support comprising no more than the ordinary curtain sides. As a result of normal seitlement and movement during road transit, alone (and excluding any rolling forces imposed at sca), curtain-sided semi-trailers can be seen on roads like pregnant cows, with bulging sidewards expansion of up to 130mm. (See Fig. 5.13.) British Standard BS3951, Part 2, Section 2.4:1992 (ISO 1496-4:1991) dealing with the specifications for containers carrying bulk cargo, specifies that sidewards deflection of walls should be no more than 40mm. Whilst itis accepted that curtain-sided semi-trailers presented for shipment do not fall within the direct classification of ISO containers, similar common-sense considerations clearly should apply. for the safcty of the vehicle, cargo and ship, tis, for instance, a requirement for vehicle lanes to be left between vehicles secured (on ro-ro vessels clear enough and safe enough to enable crew members to make regular lashing checks. The bulging outwards of curtain sides on semi-trailers greatly prohibits such safe working, cof amoe: tat Fig.5.13 (Adapted jrom ACL) The Nostica Insite 1s “ashing & Securing of Deck Cargoes"~ 2002Shippers should be advised that all cargoes carried on curtain-sided semi-trailers, whether conventional or bulk, should be so secured as to remain within the parallel lines of the vehicle platform without any reliance upon side curtain restraint. Curtain-sided equipment developed principally for marine use, ie, curtain-sided containers and road ferry “tilt” semi-trailers, all have load restraints built into their structures, comprising steel gates and supports plus timber batiens, beneath the outer curtains or tit covers. (See Fig.5.14.) eae = | Fig.5.14 (Courtesy: TFE) @ Shippers and road-hauliers should ensure that:~ The semi-trailer has been cleaned and, wherever applicable, is free from odour; The load platform is in good candition; ‘The headboard is intact; The sideboards (dropsides) and tailboards arc intact; The locking devices function correctly; ‘The landing legs are intact and in working order; The load securing equipment is intact, clean, and ‘The cover stanchions are intact; ‘The cover laths are in place and intact; ‘The hood cover is intact; ‘The equipment for sccuring the cover is intact. working order; Sections in the 1997 Code dealing with securing and lashing arrangements are reproduced in part hereunder:- Securing Arrangements 3.3 The ship should be provided with: oD an adequate number of securing poines of suffcient strength: 2 a sufficient quantity of cargo securing gear of sufficient strength and, where ‘appropriate, sufficient reserve cargo securing gear; and 3 @ Cargo Securing Manual. (Note this new reference to the CSM). Deck Securing Points AL Securing points should be provided on the ship's deck for each vehicle and for each element of a combination of vehicles. The Naateat nsiture 116 “Lashing & Securing of Deck Cargoes"~200234.2 34.3 34d 5.3.6 53.7 The tonglaudinal and transverse spacing of securing points should be sulcable forthe max of vehicles to be carried so that, where practicable, the optimum angles specified in paragraph 5.3.8 ean be achieved. The minimum strength wishout permanent deformation of each securing point for freight vehicles of ‘more than 3. cones should be 120KN (12.24 tounef). The sirength of securing points designed to ‘accommodate more than one lashing should be not less han the summation of the strength required {for each lashing calculated at 120KN per lashing. On ships which do not carry freight vehicles of more than 3.5 tonnes or which only occasionally carry vehicles, the spacing and strength of securing points should be such thatthe vehicles can be adequately secured. Ship's mobile cargo handling equipment not fixed to the ship should be provided with edequate securing points. Arrangements Persons supervising the securing of vehicles should be conversant with the contents of the Cargo Securing Manual. Lashings should have strength and elongation characteristics appropriate for the mass of the vehicle being sceured. Steel chain is the preferred means of lashing freight vehicles of more than 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle ‘mass (GVM). When any other system or material is used it should have strength and elongation ‘characteristics equivalent to those of steel chain. Chains and associated elements (e.g. hooks, shackles, elephants! feet and tensioning devices) should bbe able to withstand a load of not less than I20kN without permanent deformation. Where, exceptionally, wire ropes or other materials are used their breeking load should be atleast 200KN (20.39 tonne). . Hook: and other devices which are ured for attaching a lashing to a securing point should be designed ‘and applied in a manner which prevents them from disengaging from the aperture of the securing point ifthe lashing slackens during a voyage. Lashings should be so designed and attached that, provided that there ts safe access, tt ts possible to tighten them if they become slack. Securing potas provided on vehicles should be used for lashing purposes. Only one lashing should bbe attached to any one aperture, loop or lashing ring at each securing potnt. (See Section $.2.7). The lashings are most effective on o vehicle when they make an angle with the deck of between 30 and 60 degrees. When these optimum angles cannot be achieved additional lashings may be required. Where practicable, she arrangement of lashings on both sides of a vehicle should be the samme, and ‘augled to provide some fore-and-aft reserain with art equal number pulling forward es are pulling afi. Crossed lashings should, where practicable, not be used for securing freight vehicles because this disposition provides no restraine against loping over ai moderate angles of roll of the ship. With these vehicles, lashings should pass from a securing point on the vehicle to a deck securing point adjacent 1 the same side of the vehicle. Where there is concern about the possibility of low co-efficients of {friction on vehicles such as solid wheeled trailers, additional crossed lashings may be used to restrain sliding. The Nautical Instewre 7 ‘Lashing & Securing of Deck Cargoes "= 20025.3.1] Bearing in mind the characteristics of the ship and the conditions expected on the intended voyage, ‘the master should decide on the number of securing points and lashings, if any, to be used on each class of vehicle having regard to any vehicles which by the nature or disposition af their load may require particular attention. Additional factors which may be present and which should be taken into account are:- 1 The intended stowage arrangement including the presence of bulk liquids and hazardous cargoes .2 The weight and centres of gravity of the vehicles. High centres of gravity can substantially increase the lashing loads. With loads which evidently have a very high centre of gravity it ‘may be necessary to utilise additional lashings attached at or near the top of the load. 3 Factors which may reduce the eo-efficients of friction between various bearing surfaces. 5.3.12 Misnot possible to specify with certainty the maximum forces which may be exerted inthe mos severe conditions. If in doubt, or if very heavy weather is forecast, additional lashings should be fitted or ‘appropriate operational measures, such as delaying sailing or altering course, taken to minimise the forces. 5.4 The sandard lashing equipment used to secure vehicles in excess of 3.5 tonnes should be able to withstand a oad of not less than I20KN without permanent deformation (see section $.3.3). Lighter equipment used for ashing rehicles of less than 3.5 tonnes should be clearly marked to identfy its sirength where this {s less than I20kN. Wherever possible the standard 120kN lashing equipment should be substantially different in appearance from the lighter equipment in order to prevent confusion between the tw0.( Note, however. that the 1997 Ro-Ro Core defines “strength” ~ when referring toa lashing or fitting -as tke maximum oad which the lashing or ting can withstand without permanent deformation: whereas the CSM currently provides no such definition) Generat 7.2.1 The Cargo Securing Manual should include te following general information: (Subrparagraphs 1, .2 & .3 not here quoted.) 4 Information on the saje working oud of standardised securing gear or information on the safe working load of every specific item of cargo securing gear, The specification of safe working loads should take full account of the stresses to which the securing gear may be subjected. Wh regard co lashings for securing vehicles ships’ decks tis not required to apply the same factors of safety used {in determining dhe safe working load (SWL) of lifting gear. A vehicle lashing should not be subjected in usetoa load value greater than 5O% of ts breaking load. This value isthe "effective" safe working load ofa lashing. In broad terms the 1997 Code "strength* will be ata point possibly slightly greater than the "proof- Joad” referred to earlier herein, where the "proof-load” is half of the minimum breaking force and the SWL is normally taken as half the proof-load, ‘The sub-paragraph .4 quoted above would have been more helpful to the reader if it had omitted the last sentence and, instead, drawn attention to the fact the CSM Table 1 - MSL (maximum securing load) - values set 2 50% breaking strength usage for most of the materials likely to be used in the securing of vehicles on ro-ro vessels, and that MSL’s (maximum securing loads) should not be confused with SWL’s (safe working loads), Everyone involved with this aspect should remain alert to the proposed implementation of the CEN/EU Rules, wherein the term "Lashing Capacity" (LC) will mean 50% of break load (don’t blame me for all these term changes - "breaking surengdVbreak load /breaking force/et al” -I'm only quoting) and will not be confused with any earlier abbreviations such as SWL, MSL (maximum The Naical Institute 11s. ‘Lashing & Securing of Deck Cargservice load), or WLL(working load limit). All the IMO would be required to do t rationalise the ‘matter and remove any chance of confusion is to scrap MSL and SWL and use LC, Also, whereas in the CSS Code and CSM Regulations the aspect of "proof load” is generally fudged, the proposed CEN/EU document will make clear that "proof-load will equal LC x 1.25" ie, 621% of break-load, which ties in with one of the ISO Standards referred to earlier in the INTRODUCTION preceding Chapter L In the instance of 2 chain lashing having a proof-load of 120KN, its SWL would generally be 6OkN. and its nominal break-load could be anything between 192kN and 240kN (MSL 96KN to 120kN) depending upon which Standard it celied. (Again, sce the INTRODUCTION). For ro-ro vehicle cargo lashing purposes, therefore, it seems safe to me to assume that the 1997 Code " strength” will equate with about 6214 % of break-load (say two-thirds, roughly) and that MSL and "lashing load value” will be 50% of break-load. These distinctions should be remembered when attempting to make sense of the - sometimes - mystifying wording in Codes, Recommendations, Rules, and Regulations. ‘As most of the important aspects uf the Cargo Securing Manual have been dealt with carlicr herein, I shall not reiterate Section 7 of the 1997 Code which deals almost exclusively with the requirements of the CSM and should be consulted. 1997 Code - ANNEX - Vehicle Lashing Arrangements. (The full text of this ANNEX should be consulted by anyone involved in the operation of ro-to vessels. Only limited parts are referred t0 herein.) 3. Illustrative Lashing Charts for Ships on Short Voyages 3.1 Paragraph 7.3.5.2 of the Code of Practice suggests « simplified method, applicable to ships carrying a limited number of cargo unit types on short sea voyages, for determining the lashings required as an alternative to the comprehensive advice given in paragraph 7.3.5.1. The illustrative lashing charts (of which that for 30 tonnes Gross Vehicle Mass is reproduced as Fig.5.16, hereunder) show the minimum number of lashings of a given strength for a range of roll periods and a range of vertical heights above the waterline to resist the forces encountered in a defined case (20 roll angle, 5° pitch angle). The charts are based on typical tandem or triaxle semi-trailers and are based on typical trailer weights. The limit load of 9.5 tonnes (pcr lashing) used in the graphs gives a factor of safety of 2 in relation to the breaking load of typical grade 80 13mm alloy chains capable of withstanding a force of not less than 120kN without permanent deformation. This gives an effective safe working load of 9SKN. To remain in keeping with the general context of such propositions, itis suggested that the last rwo sentences might read: "The limit load of 9.5 tonnef used in the graphs gives a safety factor in excess of 2 (50%) in relation to the breaking load of typical grade 80 13mm alloy chain with & ‘nominal breaking load of 20 tonnef and 2 proot-load of 12.50 tonnef.” Under other circumstances the SWL would be 6.25 tonnef, ie, a safety factor of 3.2 in relation to the chain's nominal breaking load. In other words, the use of the phrase "safe working load” in paragraph 3.1 may be confusing, whereas the phrase "limit load” is correcily used, is near enough in keeping with the CSM Table 1 and with the four paragraphs, above, following 7.2.1. The Nauscal insiince 119 “Leshing & Securing of Deck Curgoes"- 20023.2. Use of the Charts 3.2.1 The accelerations to whick vehicles are subjected and, hence, the lashing forces developed, become more severe as the natural period of roll decreases. A good estimate for the roll period of a ship is given by the formula: T= 028 T = roll period in seconds GM — where B= moulded breadth in metres GM = metacentric height in metres The metacentric height should be known for any condition of loading and the value for T may therefore be easily obtained. (TYPING ERRORS: In the MCA publication "Instructions To Surveyors - Volume 1, 1999" the above formula for roll period is shown wrongly as 0.7BT when it should read as shown at 3.2.1, above, ie, T = 0.7B v¥GM GM and the word “to” in the second line below should read “for”.) 3.2.2. The lashing charts are based upon a defined case of a ship undergoing a cyclic roll angle of 20 degrees in combination with a pltch of 5 degrees. It is assumed that a semi-trailer is positioned at the forward end and outboard lane of a typical ro/ro ship able to load standard trailers in six lanes. The charts show the number of lashings which should be required in the defined circumstances to ensure that a load on the lashings of 9.5 tonnes ts not exceeded. (The disposition of the lashings relating to the charts is as shown in Fig.5.15 on page 121 and a chart for 30 tonne trailer is reproduced at Fig. 5.16 on page 122) 4.2.3 The charts are drawn up for typical ranges of GVM (gross vehicle mass) of semi-trailers up to the maximum weight currently permitted. For a 49 tonne gross train weight including tractor unit, it has been assumed that the corresponding trailer GYM is 32T. In order to use the charts for a particular case: 1 Work out the roll period T, using the formula in paragraph 3.2.1 above. (if, however, your vessel is provided with its own specific roll period data there is no reason, in my view, why you should not use that instead.) 2 Select the chart for the appropriate vehicle GVM. 3 Pick off T, the roll period. 4 Pick off the height of the deck in question above the waterline. -5. Find the intersection of roll period and height above the waterline (Steps .3 and 4). The Nautical lastitute 120 ‘Lashing & Securing of Deck Cargoes" 20026 The minimum number of lashings recommended for the defined case is indicated by the limit line to the left of the point of intersection. NOTE: Due to the difficulty in predicting dynamic accelerations and the complexity of dynamic calculations the lashing forces apply to rigid and unsprung cargo. Additional lashings may be required to resist dynamic forces. 4 LASHINGS PER SIDE ARRANGEMENT OF LASHINGS USED IN CALCULATIONS Fig.5.15 The Newtical Issue 121 Lashing & Securing of Deck Cargoes’~ 2002Example: ‘A 30-tonne trailer is to be secured on an upper vehicle deck at a height 8 metres above the water- line, Roll period in the loaded/sailing condition is calculated as 9 seconds. How many lashings per side? 9.5 TONNE LOAD LIMIT LINES TOR: 6 LANE ROMRO SHIP: SEMI-TRAILER STOWED AT FORWARD END OF OUTBOARD LANE; ROLL ANGLE30 DEGREES, PITCH ANGLE § DEGREES 30 TONNE TRAILER: ™ 24 7) ly 22 5 20 18 = is WW 14 ee = 12 10 ws Ee = 4 2 wi So OD -2 a < -4 K-68 + = a5 [| o | iw -t° T = 12 394 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ROLL PERIOD (SECONDS) Fig. 5.16 Take 8m horizontal line at lefi-hand side; locate its intersection with the vertical line extending upward from 9 seconds; move to the right (or left) until you pick up the nearest "lashings curve” ~ in this instance a minimum of 3 lashings (each of 9.5 tonne limit load) on each side of the vehicle. (If the intersection had been further to the left, then 4 each side would have been appropriate.) ‘The Nautica! instinte 122 ‘Lashing & Securing of Deck Cargoes"- 2002It will be noted that 6 lashings each with a nominal break-load of, say, 19 tonnef, will provide a total nominal break-load of 114 tonnef, whereas the straightforward 3-times rule would require 30 x3 equals 90 tonnef of lashings, This is because the Code’s graph allows for a roll angle of 20° and this example uses a roll period as low as 9 seconds at 8m height above the water-line whereas the 3-times rule allows for a roll angle of 30°, a roll period of not less than 13 seconds, and a height above the water-line of about 4m.(If a 13 second/20"roll angle at 4m is taken from the graph, the answer is 2 lashings on each side - a total of 76 tonnef.) In summary, then, the Code's graphs can be relied upon to provide trustworthy guidelines, well on the side of safety, as well as a rapid and uncomplicated method of obtaining practical results. Graphs for other Vehicle Mass Values will be found in the ANNEX to the 1997 Code. A Useful Alternative Prior to 1991 the most helpful recommendations for securing vehicles on ro-ro vessels could be found in Merchant Shipping Notice No.M.849. They were detailed, comprehensive, and too Jengihy to be quoted here in full. That M. Notice has been withdrawn, The advice offered therein, however, was designed to minimise the risk of tipping and sliding, particularly of high-sided trailers full of cargo and with high centres of gravity. The Notice commenced with the words:- "During recent years the Department has received a number of reports of damage ‘caused by the shifting of vehicles and cargo units within the vehicle/cargo spaces of Ro- Ro ships, Fortunately none of the reported incidents has resulted in loss of life but only minor changes in the pattern of events may well have produced a situation in some of these instances from which a major casualty could have developed." Unfortunately, since those words were written the author knows of instances where injury 10 one officer and loss of lite of another occurred because one of the lashing-lugs on the vehicle trailer was in poor condition and feiled, with a subsequent domino effect of incidents finalising in catastrophic death, ‘The risks accepted voluntarily as part of their job by ships’ officers do not include - nor should they include - the knowledge or assessment of a weakened vehicle trailer lashing-lug, The efficient condition of such lugs is, and should remain, the outright responsibility of the shipper or by extension - the relevant road transport operator. Some advice in this connection is contained earlier in this chapter. It is important for everyone concerned to recognise that if a lashing chain is required to haye a break-load in the range 19/20 tonnef it is equally important for each lashing-lug on the vehicle to have at least that break-load - possibly more. If ordinary mild steel round bar is used for the lug, the bar diameter would need to be at least 26mm, properly weld/attached to a strength member of the vehicle. ‘The Annexe to the M. Notice - although now also withdrawn - provided a useful meshod by wl to assess the tipping and sliding forces likely to be developed in vehicle lashings on ro-to ships - and from that point decide whether to use the 3-times rule or something more, or something alittle less, stringent. The method is demonstrated herein because the basic principles involved can be applied to all aspects of deck cargo in circumstances where the more general methods given earlier ‘may not be wholly appropriate. Italso has the happy characteristic of providing a solution by means of a scale drawing. ‘The method assumes, in the absence of any more precise information, that vehicles and/or units of cargo stowed on the decks of ro-r0 ships will be subjected to the following forces:~ The Nautical Institute 123 “Lashing & Securing of Deck Cargoes"- 2002a. Force parallel to and across the deck = 1.0W >. Force normal to the deck 1.4W c, Force in the longitudinal direction 0.3w Such forces are intended to represent the total to be applied in each direction; that is, they are the aggregate of the static and dynamic forces To examine the forces causing a vessel to tip sideways, for instance, moments are taken about the outer edge of the trailer wheel as illustrated in Fig.5.17. (For the non-mathematically inclined, don't be put-off by the word "moments": it just means the product of multiplying a weight by the length of the lever it's working on. When you push on the outside edge of ¢ door which is 1.5m wide with a force of 3kg, the hinges hecome the fulcrum and the “moment” is 1.5 x 3 = 4.5m kg. said as: four point five metre kilogrammes.) The forces preventing tipping are the vertical downward force and the lashings (F,,). If moments are taken about "A" - the outer edge of the wheel - the fulcrum position, the equation (from Fig.5.17) can be written as:- H oH XL = (1.0W x 2/3H) - (1.4W x X) transposes 10 F,yx (X + Y) Sin 8 = W (0.67H - 14x) transposes to . Fry = W_(0.67H - 1.4X) , (X + ¥) SinO Fig.5.17 In Fig.5.17 there are: pwo factor “constants”; one elective factor “constant”; at least four physical distances which must be measured (either on site or from an accurate scale drawing); and one base angle (again, found by measurement on site, of from an accurate scale drawing or by trigonometry if some other values are known) as follows:~ A-~g' factor “constant” of 1,0W relating to the force acting parallel to and transversely across the deck; b. Ag! factor "constant" of 1.4W relating to the force acting vertically to the deck; c. Ag’ factor "constant" of 0.3W relating to the force acting parallel to and longitudinally to the deck (not shown in Fig.5.17); The Nausieat insnitute 124 “Lashing & Securing of Deck Cargoes”= 2002dd. Anelective centre of gravity (¢ of g) “constant” of %H. If the exact c of g of the unit as a whole is not known, and eannot accurately be calculated, the c of g isto be taken as being at a height above the deck of % the overall height of vehicle and body; e. Physical height “H’: the overall height of vehicle and body; t Physical length ~X*: che horizontal distance from the outer edge of the outer wheel to the centre line of the unit as a whole; g. Physical length “Y': the horizontal distance from the centre line of the unit to the deck level lashing terminal; h, Physical height of the trailer lashing terminal above the deck level. Using squared graph paper and a reasonably large scale - 1:200 fits nicely on A4 paper, ie, Sem = Im- produce an outline drawing and measure (or calculate) the base angle 8. Using the values given in Fig.5.18 and the enclosed formulae given in the box on the previous page, the tipping sideways force may be calculated: W = total weight of trailer and contents = 30 tonnes H = 3.582m of which 0.67H = 2.40m, Y= 145m X= 115m X + Y = 2.60m ‘= 15° at trailer side lashings | ; . el | (ES | les 145m —t— Hm A Fig.5.18 = (2.4 -(1.4x 1.15 2.6 Sin 75° = 30x 0.79 2.54 Tipping forces = 9.437 tonnef - each way = 18,874 tonnef, in all Where tipping forces are not properly allowed for and secured against, severe adverse weather ‘conditions will exact the penalty shown in Fig.5.19. The Nautical fasiate 125 “Lashing & Securing of Deck Cargoes" 2002Photo: Peter MeCleland Severe weather and inadequate side lashings Fig.5.19 To examine the forces causing the vehicle to slide sideways, itis assumed that the trailer is supported | | 7 a by wheels at one end and by a trestle (or horse) at the other as shown in Fig.5.20. Fig. 5.20 (Adapted from ACL) In each instance sliding is resisted by the frictional resistance (denoted by the letter "14") between trestle/trailer frame and tyre/deck and also the lashings shown as Fy, in Figs.5.21 and 5.22 Fig 5.22 The Nautical Institute 126 Lashing & Securing of Deck Cargoes"~ 2002It is assumed that half the total forces act at each end of the trailer and that the co-efficient of friction between trestle and trailer frame (or trestle and deck) is 0.2, and between rubber wheels and the steel deck it is 0.4 - see, also, Chapter 1 on this topic - then, in the instance of Fig.5.21, the trestle end of the trailer, the effective sliding force OSW-(0.7W xu) = 0SW-0.7Wx0.2) = 0SW-0.14W 0.307 TThen the force in the lashing resisting sliding = F,, = @.36W Cos 6 Again, using squared graph paper, produce an outline drawing and measure (or calculate) the base angle 8. In this instance, use the values shown in Fig.5.21, so Frys = 0.36.30 = 10,8 = 12.877 Cos 330.8387 So the force in the lashing resisting sliding at the twestle end = 12.877 tonne. In the instance of Fig.$.22 - the wheel end of the trailer - the effective sliding force = 0SW-O.7Wxu) = O5W-O.7Wx04) = 0.5W-0.28W 0.2W ‘Then the force in the lashing resisting sliding =F Again, use squared graph paper to produce an outline drawing to obtain the base angle 8 - or calculate it by trigonometry. In this instance, use the values given in Fig.5.22, so Fy = 0.22x30= 66 = 1.475 Cos 28 0.8829 So the force in the lashing resisting sliding at the wheel end = 7.475 tonnet. Combining the tipping and sliding forces: 18.874 + 12.877 + 7.475 equals 39.226 tonnef. With mild steel chains the lashing load must not exceed 50% of the break-load; so the aggregate break-load of the lashings used must be 39.226 x 2 = 78,452 tonnef. This result is less stringent than the 3-times rule for weather-deck cargoes which, in this instance of a 30-tonne vehicle, would produce a break-load of 30 x 3 = 90 tonnef. It is also less stringent than the 114 tonnet arising from the use of the graphs. It is most probably because of these comparisons that the original M. Notice was withdrawn. So, if you are going to use this "Useful Alternative", and severe adverse weather conditions are likely to be encountered, I would suggest you double the value for sliding forces which, in this instance, would produce a lashing load of $9.578 tonnef, equating to a required break-load of 119.2 tonnef. And nothing in the above few pages should detract from the use of the excellent graphs for the various vehicle masses included in the ANNEX to the 1997Cade and as exampled earlier herein, two more of which are reproduced on the following page. The Neuticel Insitute 127 ‘Lashing & Securing of Deck Cargoes"- 20029,5 TONNE LOAD LIMIT LINE FOR: 6 LANE RO/RO SHIP; SEMI-TRAILER STOWED AT FORWARD END OF OUTBOARD LANE: ROLL ANGLE 20 DEGREES; PITCH ANGLE 5 DEGREES. 20 TONNE TRAILER Ge A Q 2 & i ie a Ge = ws ge w 4 - Zn iy 4 2 0 xs ge { Boe { < 4 s+ Z w ae, a 32 | <4 - eo - 2-0 : i -12 S456 7 8 8 1011 12 13 14 15 16 ROLL PERIOD (SECONDS) FEEttS HHH ested . 32 TONNE TRAILER HEIGHT ABOVE WATER LINE (METRES) 2ST B78 OT TS ta 1S TS ROLL PERIOD (SECONDS) Graphs: Couresy The Stationery Office - Code of Safe Practice 1997, fautcat tnsttute 1s. “Lathing & Securing of Deck Cargoes"~ 2002