| Cargo
Securement Standards Harmonization Committee Meeting - September 15, 1996
Marriott
Hotel
Charleston,
West Virginia
RECORD
OF DECISIONS
In Attendance:
CVSA - R.
Fiste - Co-Chair , CCMTA - L. Pelletier - Co-Chair , CCMTA - S.
McAlister - Secretary, Oregon State University - C. Bell, Ontario
Ministry of Transportation - J. Billing, L'Echo du Transport -
S. Bouchard, West Virginia PSC - B. Brooks, Alberta Transportation
- S. Callahan, SAAQ - R. Desaulniers, Ministere des Transports
du Québec - G. Desrosiers, Aluminum Association - S. Epstein,
Oregon DOT - H. Eubanks, FDOT/MCCO - D. Harris, Pennsylvania PUC
- M. Hoffman, Saskatchewan Highways & Transportation - P.
Hurst, Oregon DOT - R. Jones, Columbus McKinnon Corporation -
T. Lowery, Montana DOT - G. Marten, Oregon State University -
P. Montagne, Transport Canada - J. Neufeld, California Highway
Patrol - M. Padilla, New Brunswick DOT - J. Palmer, CCMTA - J.
Pearson, Information & Education Services - T. Pogue, Ravenwood
Aluminum Corporation - B. Sims, Kinedyne Corporation - J. Takacs,
Lufkin Trailers (TTMA) - L. Watts.
1. Introduction
and Welcome
Mr. Fiste
and Ms. Pelletier the Co-Chairs of the Standards Harmonization
Committee welcomed participants to Charleston for the second meeting
of the Committee.
The Co-Chairs
outlined the purpose of the meeting indicating the research results
would be presented and the Committee would be asked to review
and provide comments on the initial draft of the North American
Cargo Securement standard. A brief overview of the function and
reporting structure between the Drafting and Harmonization Committee
was provided. Finally, it was noted the Committee at a later date
would be responsible for developing an implementation and communication
plan.
A general
round of introductions were made.
2. Adoption
of Agenda
The agenda
was reordered for the MTO presentation on the research results
and was then adopted.
3. Adoption
of Record of Decisions - April 2, 1996 -
Norfolk, Virginia
The Record
of Decisions from the Norfolk meeting were reviewed and then approved
by the participants.
4. Cargo
Security Research - Review of Findings - Status Research Reports
Overview
Mr. Billing
provided an overview of the test program noting very little was
known about the interaction between the various elements of cargo
securement systems. The joint research program which had been
undertaken by both private and public sponsors was aimed at addressing
this lack of knowledge. Basic knowledge on cargo securement systems
would be used as building blocks to develop a new North American
standard. He indicated the research was directed at fundamentals
such as anchor points, tiedowns, blocking, and friction (static
and under vibration). He noted additional specific testing was
being done on dressed lumber (applicable to similar loads), metal
coils and other commodities including boulders and palletized
loads. He indicated his presentation would cover the Ontario portion
of the research.
i) Ontario
Ministry of Transportation
a) Effect
of Load Type and Tiedowns on Equalization of Tension in the Spans
of Tiedowns
Mr. Billing
summarized the results from this aspect of the testing noting
that contrary to conventional wisdom the load did not equalize
during the testing. He indicated there is a considerable loss
in tension when a tiedown passes over a corner. Road vibration
does not result in equalization of tension, except to the extent
that the tight side becomes looser. He indicated if the load is
not rigid there can be a total loss of tiedown tension as the
load settles. For regulatory principles he indicated tensioning
from the centre reduces the total loss of tension.
A number of
participants expressed surprise at the results. It was agreed
Mr. Billing would draw conclusions on tiedowns following presentation
of item 4.i.e).
b) Effect
of Binder Type and Chain Length on Tension in Chain Tiedowns
Mr. Billing
summarized the research findings on this portion of the project
noting ratchet binders should be used with care, as excessive
ratcheting can easily tension the chain beyond the Working Load
Limit (WLL). He noted lever binders would not normally tension
close to the WLL without assistance. A 24 inch pipe on a lever
binder can tension above the WLL, and should not be used. He briefly
indicated that there was little effect of corner radius or chain
link orientation on chain failure. Most of the failures which
occurred were at loads close to the straight pull strength (See
item 4.i.e).
c) Friction
Coefficients Between Typical Loads and Trailer Decks
Mr. Billing
summarized the research findings relative to friction noting it
may have been a factor underestimated for its ability to ensure
loads are secured to vehicles. He indicated a number of skidder/trailer
deck combinations have quite high co-efficients of friction. The
effect of various contaminants (ie: water, oil, dirt) produced
interesting results relative to the co-efficient of friction.
He indicated a high friction number generally inhibits load movement.
He suggested the Committee would be called upon to evaluate whether
friction could be made reliable as a means of load securement.
d) Load
Capacity of Nailed Wood Blocking
Mr. Billing
summarized the research findings relative to nailed blocking.
He noted the numbers generally confirmed work which had been done
by the AAR. The different methods of using nails (ie: front toenail)
as blocking and their modes of failure was described.
In discussion
it was acknowledged nailed wood blocking, or blocking against
an obstacle can help immobilize cargo. It was suggested for regulatory
principles that blocking can be used for articles of moderate
weight. For heavy cargo however it was impractical to place substantial
reliance on blocking for securement purposes.
e) Effect
of Load Movement on Tension in Tiedowns
Mr. Billing
summarized the results of the effect of cargo motion on tiedowns.
It was noted tiedown tension increases depend on tiedown, geometry
and corner characteristics and cargo movement. If the cargo moves
far enough, geometry can result in very high tensions in chain
tiedowns. Webbing is flexible and therefore generally more forgiving.
Tension is relieved if the load slips under the tiedown. This
latter point was demonstrated with bar graphs from the testing.
The research
results suggested the following for consideration by the drafting
group. Tiedowns do not prevent cargo movement. Tiedowns require
sufficient tension to secure the cargo and sufficient reserve
against yield when the cargo moves. This will be difficult to
control reliably in any standard. Tiedowns become much less critical
element in cargo securement systems if the cargo is immobilized
or has high resistance to movement. As a result cargo should be
contained, blocked, braced or otherwise immobilized prior to tiedown.
Tiedowns alone cannot prevent cargo from moving at high accelerations,
so some movement must be accepted if cargo cannot be completely
immobilized. The standard should set requirements that there be
no cargo movement up to some reasonable acceleration. With respect
to flexible tiedowns there may be substantial movement and if
this unacceptable (movement) these types of tiedowns should not
be used. Finally tiedown requirements must allow for unequal tensions.
f) Evaluation
of the Strength and Failure Modes of Heavy Truck Cargo Anchor
Points
Mr. Billing
summarized the test results for anchor points noting testing had
been undertaken on stake pockets, chain in tubes, D-rings, rub
rails, welded rods, and winches. Briefly stated steel pockets
are generally stronger than aluminum pockets and failures occur
at the welds. For the stake pocket chain pull all of the aluminum
pockets failed at the weld. Hooks or chain severely distorted
the pockets usually at loads far below the ultimate. For D-rings
ultimate load seems independent of load direction. Either the
clip, weld or the ring failed. Mr. Billing noted the testing indicated
that winches fail either at the attachment (weld, clip, or track)
or at the pawl. Sliding winches were weaker than welded and clipped
winches as the track opened up at quite low loads (3 to 4 thousand
pounds). He also noted winches are much weaker if loaded other
than vertically. He briefly summarized the results for chain-in-tubes
and welded rods noting large permanent deformations occurred at
quite low loads.
In summary
he noted all anchor points started to yield and become severely
deformed at loads much lower than the ultimate load reached. Ultimate
loads varied greatly depending on the direction of loading. Many
of the failures recorded were well below Transport Canada's 20,000
lb ultimate load. For the purposes of the standard he suggested
the Committee should consider that all anchor points be designated
and rated. The mode of use should be considered in rating anchor
points. Finally a standard or direction should be developed to
assess damaged anchor points and when they should be replaced.
g) Tests
on Methods of Securement for Thick Metal Plate
The testing
is complete but was not covered in the presentation.
h) Tests
on Methods of Securement for Large Boulders
Mr. Billing
provided the results from the testing for large boulders where
the following regulatory principles were suggested: put the flattest
side down, stabilize with blocking, the pointed end should be
forward, and create a wedge.
Following
discussion it was agreed the Drafting Group would be tasked with
creating language in the standard to reflect these principles.
i) Bending
Strength of Trailer Stakes
Mr. Billing
summarized the results from the testing for the bending strength
of trailer stakes. He noted the testing conforms with fundamentals
of structural engineering for bending and shear.
A brief discussion
ensued where it was agreed the Committee would await the full
report prior to providing any direction to the Drafting Group.
j) Effect
of Tiedowns on Wood Blocks Used as Dunnage
Mr. Billing
indicated the testing had suggested cargo should be preferably
be contained, blocked, braced, wedged or otherwise immobilized
prior to tiedown. He noted a significant number of wood blocks
had been destroyed during the testing. It was noted tiedowns alone
cannot prevent cargo from moving at high accelerations, so movement
must be accepted if cargo cannot be completely immobilized. He
indicated there should be no cargo movement up to some reasonable
acceleration and it would be up to the drafting committee to set
the limit. He noted flexible tiedowns may allow substantial movement;
and if this is determined to be unacceptable, these types of tiedowns
should not be used. He suggested wherever possible the load should
be wedged. He concluded by indicating tiedown requirements must
allow for unequal tensions based on the earlier results (See item
4.i,a).
k) Metal
Coil Testing - Update
Mr. Billing
advised the Committee that testing for this portion of the project
was being initiated in the next few weeks and would be completed
through the course of the fall. He indicated the coil inertia
reaction rig had been designed and constructed and that MTO would
be undertaking "shakedown" testing prior to the actual
tests. He indicated this was by far the largest component of the
research and extra care was being taken to ensure the tests provided
the desired results. He concluded by indicating the report on
this testing would be available by year end.
ii) Concordia
University
a) Experimental
Evaluation of Friction Coefficients of Typical Loads and Trailer
Decks Under Vertical Vibration
Mr. Neufeld
summarized the results of the Concordia tests noting friction
might not be as reliable as an element in the load securement
system as had previously been hoped. He indicated minimum sliding
friction diminishes as vibration increases. Cargo can "hop"
and this depends on the dynamics of the deck/cargo interface.
In some situations up to 75% of friction was lost for 25% of time
when subject to dynamic tests. A bump would cause the load to
move upwards and then shift on the trailer deck. He briefly outlined
the results from the supplementary computer work which had been
done by Concordia and drew the implications of these results for
the standards harmonization project.
It was suggested
the Drafting Group might have to further consider whether "up"
was a direction relative to the development of a performance based
standard.
iii) MTQ
- Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada
a) Slippage
Tests with Anti-Skid Mats
Mr. Desrosiers
provided an overview of the tests which had been undertaken by
MTQ/FERIC relative to Anti-Skid pads or mats. He indicated the
results had suggested the mats had promising capabilities in enhancing
the friction between the load and the trailer deck.
It was suggested
in eliminating load shift the mats may engender different kinds
of problems relative to loads toppling over. Mr. Palmer indicated
New Brunswick would be conducting additional tests with Sunbury
on paper rolls using mats. It was agreed when this testing was
completed it would be shared with the Standards Harmonization
and Drafting Committees.
b) Dressed
Lumber Tiedown Tests
Mr. Desrosiers
provided an overview of the work and results which had been generated
from the MTQ/FERIC research on dressed lumber. He indicated a
variety of tests (both static and dynamic) had been conducted
on dressed lumber. He noted the results should be equally applicable
to other commodities of similar size and method of restraint.
Briefly he indicated friction along the surfaces of contact between
the load and its supports would appear to be the principal factor
which affects load securement. This was highlighted by the relative
performance between wood and teflon surfaces. Tiedown tension
also had a significant impact on the efficiency of tiedown systems.
He concluded by indicating the research indicated that adding
more tiedowns beyond the minimum needed to assure load integrity
would appear to provide only minor improvements in load securement.
In discussion,
Mr. Desrosiers clarified teflon had been utilized to provide baseline
results which would be equivalent to snow and ice on a trailer
deck. It was noted this was a worst case scenario which would
have to be considered by the Standards Harmonization Committee
in setting the base performance requirements. It was noted the
results were complimentary and confirmed other completed project
work. It was confirmed that these two reports were final and could
be secured from the CCMTA Secretariat.
iv) Aluminum
Association
Mr. Epstein
updated participants on the testing which was being undertaken
by members of the Aluminum Association. He indicated the computer
simulation model developed by Professor Perkins of Syracuse University
had been completed and that Bill Moore was conducting tests (some
of which had been previewed at the previous meeting). He indicated
the Aluminum Association would be doing on road tests for bumps,
blocking and emergency manoeuvres for the transport of coils.
He concluded his presentation by indicating a report would be
prepared by the end of the year on both the computer and actual
testing conducted.
A brief discussion
ensued and Mr. Epstein was encouraged to circulate the report
to all participants. Mr. Epstein undertook to provide the results
and report to participants at the next meeting.
c) Remaining
Research and Schedule
This item
was covered during Mr. Billing's presentation to the Committee.
All remaining testing would be completed through the fall. Most
of this testing would be on metal coils.
d) Availability
of Reports
The Secretariat
advised on the process for release of the test reports noting
each sponsor to the project would receive a complimentary copy
of each of the final reports. He indicated the Management Committee
had made a decision that the reports would be made available to
all other interested stakeholders at a nominal cost from the Secretariat.
Information on the release dates and pricing was provided. It
was noted interested participants could use the internet site
to order reports from the Secretariat.
e) Discussion
A concluding
discussion was held among the participants who expressed satisfaction
with the types and quantity of information which were being generated
by the project. In summary the participants urged the researchers
to speed the completion of the testing and publish the results
so that progress could be made relative to standard development.
5. Standard
Development
Overview
The Co-Chairs
introduced Mr. Pearson (Secretary to the Drafting Group) and called
on him to provide an overview of the work undertaken to date.
Mr. Pearson briefly restated the objectives for the Standards
Harmonization Committee. The Committee would be expected to develop
a new performance based cargo securement standard which can be
uniformly implemented throughout North America. The standard would
be developed through collaboration between government and stakeholders
from all three countries. He briefly described the process noting
the research would provide the technical foundation for the standard.
The Harmonization Committee was responsible to develop the standard
supported by the small Drafting Group which develops material
for review by the Harmonization Committee.
a) Review
of First Draft
Mr. Pearson
tabled copies of the first draft prepared by the Drafting Group
and spoke to the outline, structure, and principles contained
therein. He noted the purpose of the Standards Harmonization Committee
was to gain consensus among jurisdictions, carriers, shippers
and other stakeholders on:
1)
Guiding principles for cargo securement which have general application
to all cargo transported on the highway system;
2)
Performance criteria which should be met by cargo securement systems;
3)
Performance based, prescriptive cargo securement requirements
which will apply to selected commodities;
4)
A means to implement a common standard in all jurisdictions in
North America which results in uniform application, enforcement
and interpretation.
Members discussed
and debated the four principles noted above. In discussion, the
need to ensure the structural integrity of cargo which was being
shipped was raised as an issue. It was suggested there was a role
for shippers to ensure cargo could be adequately secured. Members
of the Standards Harmonization Committee requested that this issue
be further reviewed by the Drafting Group. In discussion, it was
clarified there would be an ongoing need to review and update
the standard. It was further suggested that once the performance
criteria were set some shippers and carriers would opt to meet
the standard in non-conventional means. This would entail certification
by an engineer that the mode of securement conformed with the
criteria established in Part 1 and 2 of the standard. A number
of members expressed concerns relative to how these provisions
could be enforced at roadside. It was indicated this would probably
be a rare situation and the majority of carriers would utilize
the prescriptive methods which were in the process of being developed.
The Standards Harmonization Committee requested the Drafting Group
continue their review of this issue. It was agreed further consideration
of this issue would be deferred until more of the prescriptive
portions of the standard were developed.
ii) Proposed
Scope and Application of Uniform Standard
Mr. Pearson
indicated it was proposed the North American standard would apply
to all vehicles over 10,000 lbs (4,500 kg.).
Mr. Pogue
raised the issue of the proposed FHWA exemption for vehicles in
the 10,000 to 26,000 lb. category and asked whether the standard
would apply to these vehicles. Mr. Fiste indicated he would clarify
the situation with FHWA officials but at the present time the
understanding was that all vehicles over 10,000 lbs. would be
covered by the standard. It was agreed the Co-Chairs would seek
confirmation of this point from FHWA. The Committee endorsed the
standard would apply to any vehicle with a gross vehicle weight,
gross vehicle weight rating or gross combination weight rating
in excess of 10,000 lbs (4,500 kg.).
iii) Draft
Performance Criteria
Mr. Pearson
provided an overview of the draft performance requirements which
were being proposed to the Committee by the Drafting Group. He
noted following extensive discussion within the Drafting Group
the following parameters were being recommended to the Standards
Harmonization Committee. Mr. Pearson outlined the acceleration
limits (.4 g longitudinally and .4 g laterally) for "normal
driving" conditions and indicated the objective was to ensure
that cargo must remain secure on or within the vehicle, and any
movement or shifting of cargo must not cause damage to the vehicle,
or cause the vehicle to become unstable. For "emergency situations"
the drafting group was proposing the acceleration limits be .8
g longitudinally and .6 g laterally. The objective was to ensure
that cargo would be adequately restrained to prevent it from falling
off the vehicle, shifting beyond the bounds of the vehicle, or
tipping over. It was further noted the cargo securement system
should not suffer permanent damage (ie: working load limit of
the components should not be exceeded).
A general
discussion on the performance limits was undertaken by the participants.
Mr Jones indicated the Guiding Principles needed to be adjusted
to reflect for both normal and emergency driving that load shift
which effects vehicle stability would not be permitted under the
standard. He noted it was preferable to design a standard in which
no movement was permitted. The difficulty of building this requirement
into the standard was acknowledged by the participants. Eventually
it was agreed Guiding Principles sub-heading b) would be modified
to reflect that vehicle stability or vehicle safety shall not
be effected. It was further agreed the performance criteria for
emergency situations would clearly state the vehicle should not
become unstable or unsafe following this type of manoeuvre. He
noted following a panic stop if the load has shifted there should
be a requirement to ensure the load is "reset" prior
to departing again.
A general
discussion ensued on the need to set an acceleration limit for
the vertical direction. The rationale for the Drafting Group not
including this performance limit was outlined. The Committee noted
from the research friction was not always present therefore an
effort would have to be made to secure against vertical movement
of the load. It was suggested vehicle manufacturers would have
data on vertical motion and this should be incorporated into the
standard. The multitude of different vehicle suspensions and their
performance characteristics would make developing this number
difficult but not impossible. Mr. Takacs undertook to provide
to Mr. Pearson copies of U.S. army studies which had been undertaken
on this subject. Mr. Watts indicated trailer manufacturers did
have some general performance information which possibly could
be shared with the Drafting Group in attempting to develop a vertical
performance criteria. It was agreed the Standards Harmonization
Committee would recommend to the Drafting Group that work be undertaken
to set a vertical performance criteria for the cargo securement
standard. It was agreed the Drafting Group would be asked to report
on this issue at the next meeting.
A general
discussion ensued on vehicle and trailer structural integrity.
A number of members indicated it would be important for the TTMA
to be involved in the setting of the numbers for trailer deck
and walls. A number of participants indicated there was a need
to provide anchor points which could be used to properly secure
cargo within and on a trailer. Mr. Neufeld briefly outlined the
Canada Gazette Part 1 which was being considered in Canada relating
to anchor points. He noted a manufacturing standard was being
proposed to ensure that cargo could be secured within a trailer
and on a flat deck. Many of the participants welcomed and endorsed
this initiative. It was further suggested information and requirements
for track strength needed to be included in the standard. The
Committee further endorsed the notion that every component used
in a cargo securement system should be rated and marked.
It was suggested
trailer walls should also be rated given that many shippers/carriers
were using the walls as a means to secure cargo. Mr. Watts indicated
this was an incorrect use of the trailer wall, but acknowledged
it was common practice. It was agreed the Drafting Group would
be directed to work with the TTMA/CTEA to secure the information
required to address these problems. Mr. Watts indicated TTMA would
be prepared to work with members of the Drafting Group. From an
enforcement perspective it was noted at a future date consideration
would have to be given to viewing the contents within a trailer
to ensure the carrier had used anchor points (if provided), and
had secured cargo pursuant to the prescriptive elements of the
standard. The Drafting Group was requested to consider these points
in the development of the engineering assessment and prescriptive
sections of the standard.
In order to
bring closure to the basic principles and to continue work on
the rest of the standard the Drafting Group required endorsement
of the first sections of the standard. Mr. Palmer recommended
the Standards Harmonization Committee endorse the proposed format
and structure of the Cargo securement standard. In addition, it
was recommended the Committee endorse the proposed performance
criteria outlined in Part 1 as the basis for a uniform North American
Cargo Securement standard. The recommendation was endorsed unanimously
by the Standards Harmonization Committee.
iv) Commodities
to be Addressed
Mr. Pearson
briefly indicated the Drafting Group was in the process of developing
prescriptive cargo securement requirements for the following:
intermodal containers; longitudinal loads secured transversely;
metal bars, plates, and pipe; metal coils; paper rolls; roll-on
containers; and transverse loads secured longitudinally. He noted
material on these elements would be circulated through the fall
as the Drafting Group worked through and interpreted the research
results.
He noted the
Drafting Group was giving consideration to including the following
commodities in the prescriptive sections of the standard: round
objects; crushed vehicles; loads on pole trailers; large construction
equipment, cars and car carriers, loads on pallets. He sought
direction from the Standards Harmonization Committee on whether
these lists were exhaustive and whether additional items should
be reviewed.
In discussion,
the Committee endorsed that prescriptive requirements be developed
for those elements "under development" and those being
"considered" by the Drafting Group. In addition, the
Harmonization Committee recommended the Drafting Group review
and develop requirements for hay rolls and specially designed
vehicles. The Standards Harmonization Committee reiterated the
desire that the Drafting Group "work faster" in developing
the elements of the standard.
v) Schedule
& Timing
The Standards
Harmonization Committee undertook a review of the schedule for
release of various drafts. It was noted an attempt was going to
be made to complete development work by July 1997. This entailed
that multiple drafts would be circulated through the fall and
winter of the year. In order to expedite progress on the standard
the members of the Harmonization Committee agreed ten working
days would be provided for comment on each successive draft of
the standard. The Co-Chairs emphasized the importance of discipline,
and having Committee members adhere to this schedule if the tight
time lines for delivery of the North American standard were to
be met. It was clarified that for those that did not have Internet
access the CCMTA Secretariat would provide hard copy, allow five
days for mail delivery and then the same ten day commentary period
would be provided. It was confirmed the Secretariat would advise
by fax when each subsequent draft was available for review. Participants
were requested to provide their fax numbers to CCMTA.
A brief discussion
ensued on the requirement to develop training and awareness materials.
The Co-Chairs suggested and the Committee agreed the first priority
was to develop the standard and that these issues would be revisited
next year.
b) Web
and Sling Tiedown Association (WSTDA)
Mr. Takacs
provided an overview of the work underway by the Association to
develop a marking standard for webbing and tiedowns. He briefly
indicated work was being undertaken to rate these products so
they could be properly used for cargo securement. He further noted
work was being initiated by the Association to develop a standard
to rate and mark winches.
In discussion,
Mr. Takacs indicated a preliminary draft had been circulated to
the members of the Web and Sling Tiedown Association (WSTDA) and
comments were expected by October 1, 1996. He indicated WSTDA
hoped to have a consolidated standard completed for November 1996.
Mr. Takacs indicated the standard would be broadly circulated
to CCMTA, CVSA, ATA, and the TTMA for review and comment. It would
be the intent of the of WSTDA to publish the approved standard
in late 1997. The Committee endorsed the importance of the WSTDA
work relative to the development of the North American Cargo Securement
standard.
c) Consultation
Process & Solicitation of Stakeholders Comments
This item
was covered under item 5. a). v. of this Record of Decisions.
All participants were requested however to provide to the CCMTA
Secretariat the names and addresses of other organizations which
should be part of the Standards Harmonization effort (ie: Movers
Association, Special Carriers and Rigging Association).
6. Other
Business
No other business
was identified by the participants.
7. Next
Meeting
Fredericton,
New Brunswick during the CCMTA annual conference in May was suggested
as a possible meeting date. It was agreed discretion would be
left to the Co-Chairs to determine the date for the next meeting
with the understanding a Canadian location was preferable.
8. Adjournment
The Co-Chairs
thanked the participants for a productive session and adjourned
the meeting.
|
