Doprava a spoje elektronický časopis Fakulty prevádzky a ekonomiky dopravy a spojov Žilinskej univerzity v Žiline, ISSN

Transcription

1 LOADING AND CARGO SECURING DEVICES IN STANDARD FORTY FOOT GENERAL PURPOSE MARITIME CONTAINERS Juraj Jagelčák 1, Ján Vrábel 2 a Miroslav Fazekaš 3 1 Introduction The requirements for cargo securing systems (where provided) are specified in the standard ISO in Annex F. In line with F.1.2 these systems consist of: - shoring, or - cargo securing devices, or - combination of both. The Annex F describes cargo securing devices only. They are permanent fixtures to which lashings (such as ropes, straps, chains, cables, etc.) may be attached. [1] This cargo securing devices are optional for freight. If they are fitted then Annex F of the standard must be followed. However, the section F.2.2 defines the typical number where it is not said that 1AAA, 1AA, 1A and 1AX shall have a minimum of 16 anchoring points and unspecified number of lashing points. According F.1.3.1: Anchoring points are securing devices located in the base structure of the container. and Lashing points are securing devices located in any part of the container other than their base structure. Base structure is defined in the standard ISO 830 [7] as rigid assembly in which the components most commonly found are: a) four bottom corner fittings; b) two bottom side rails; c) two bottom-end transverse members; d) a floor and floor bearers (except in tank types); e) such optional features as fork lift pockets and/or a gooseneck tunnel. The difference between lashing points and anchoring points is not only in fitting place but also in required minimum strength of 1000 dan for anchoring points and 500 dan for lashing points applied in any direction. This is in contradiction with the testing requirement F.3.1 where such points are tested: in a plane perpendicular to the axis of the container structural member to which it is attached and at an angle of 45 to the horizontal plane., so not in any direction. The standard EN [2] specifies more detailed minimum requirements for lashing points (this standard uses the term lashing point) on commercial vehicles than ISO , but it is not dedicated for freight. According to this standard the loading platform equal to the platform of forty foot container (min mm) shall have a minimum of 22 anchoring points (11 per side) compared with typical according to ISO anchoring points (8 per side) used in 40 ft.. The difference is also in strength requirements for anchoring points where a minimum of 2000 dan anchoring points are required. This gives 22 1 Ing. Juraj Jagelčák, PhD., Faculty of Operation and Economics of Transport and Communications (FPEDaS), University of Zilina (Žilinská univerzita v Žiline), Univerzitná 1, Žilina, Slovakia, jagelcak@fpedas.uniza.sk 2 Ing. Ján Vrábel, Faculty of Operation and Economics of Transport and Communications (FPEDaS), University of Zilina (Žilinská univerzita v Žiline), Univerzitná 1, Žilina, Slovakia, vrabel@fpedas.uniza.sk 3 Ing. Miroslav Fazekaš, Faculty of Operation and Economics of Transport and Communications (FPEDaS), University of Zilina (Žilinská univerzita v Žiline), Univerzitná 1, Žilina, Slovakia, fazekas@fpedas.uniza.sk 28

2 anchoring points for 28 tones payload and 42 anchoring points if the strength is 1000 dan only. It is obvious that the 1000 dan anchoring points in freight are not suitable for lashing of heavy loads. 2 Gross weights, payloads, volume and load distribution in general purpose forty foot including tractor and semi-trailer combinations We have analysed 223 different models of forty foot (42G0, 42G1, 45G0, 45G1) of 51 different owners. According to the ISO 668 [3] the gross weight (GWT) of such is kg but nowadays the weight kg and kg is used very often. This gives a payloads of 26 tones and 28 tones. High-cube (45G0, 45G1) are about 150 kg heavier than 42G0, 42G1. Figure 1: Tare weight and payloads of 42G1, 42G0, 45G1, 45G0 The typical internal volume is for a 40 ft general purpose container 67,7 m 3 and for 40 ft HC container 76,4 m 3. The typical load distribution for GWT kg for the payload of 26 tones is 2 tonnes per running meter. Hovewer, the Hapag-Lloyd 40 ft. have 3 tonnes per running meter allowed. The load shall be distributed in a way not exceeding 60% of mass in a container half according to the standard ISO 3874 [5]. The total container payload cannot be used in many cases because of maximum allowed gross vehicle and gross combination weight which is limited to 40 tonnes and 44 tonnes in combine transport for vehicle carrying ISO 40-foot container. The table below specifies tare weights of selected vehicle combinations for container carriage. 29

3 Table 1: Tare weights of vehicle combinations for container carriage TRACTORS TARE WEIGHTS (tons) Truck/semi-trailer container chassis Tractor GCW / GVW / Axle weights (1;2;3 axles) Mercedes Benz 1844 LS, two axles 40t/18t/(7,1t; 11,5t) Renault PREMIUM T - two axles 44t/18t /(7,1t;11,5t) DAF FT XF105 - two axles 44t/18t/(7,5t;11,5t) IVECO STRALIS AS 440S45 T/P - two axles 44t/18t /(7,5t;11,5t) IVECO STRALIS AS 440S42 T/XP - three axles 48t/24,5t/(7,1t;6,7t;11,5) MAN TGA three axles 40t/22t/(6,5t;5,2t;10,5t) IVECO STRALIS AT 440S45 T/XP - three axles 48t/24,5t/(7,1t;6,7t;11,5t) Renault PREMIUM /26 T6X2 - three axles 44t/26t/(8t;6,85t;11,5t) MAN TGX two axles 40t/18t/(9t;11,5t) GCW Gross combination weight GVW Gross vehicle weight Semi-trailer type Total weight/(king pin and axle loads) Krone SdC 27 el40' 39t/(12t;9t;9t;9t) CONTAINER CHASSIS Kögel Port 40 simplex 41t/(12,5t;9t;9t;9t) KRONE, Box liner, SDC 27 eltu5_2 41t/(14t;9t;9t;9t) Schmitz S.CF 24 G 45 EURO III 35t/(11t;8t;8t;8t) Schmitz - S.CF GOOSENECK SLIDING BOGIE, S.CF 45 41t/(12t;9t;9t;9t) Kögel Port 45 duplex 41t/(12,5t;9t;9t;9t) KRONE,Box Liner,SDC 27 eltu6 (Sled Chassis) 41t/(14t;9t;9t;9t) Kögel Port 40 multiplex 41t/(12,5t;9t;9t;9t) - TARE 5,200 5,350 5,600 5,600 5,720 5,750 5,900 6,100 TARE PAYLOAD 33,800 35,650 35,400 29,400 35,280 35,250 35,100 34,900 6,805 11,195 12,005 12,155 12,405 12,405 12,525 12,555 12,705 12,905 6,910 11,090 12,110 12,260 12,510 12,510 12,630 12,660 12,810 13,010 7,006 10,994 12,206 12,356 12,606 12,606 12,726 12,756 12,906 13,106 7,460 10,540 12,660 12,810 13,060 13,060 13,180 13,210 13,360 13,560 7,860 16,640 13,060 13,210 13,460 13,460 13,580 13,610 13,760 13,960 7,700 10,300 12,900 13,050 13,300 13,300 13,420 13,450 13,600 13,800 7,860 16,640 13,060 13,210 13,460 13,460 13,580 13,610 13,760 13,960 8,001 17,999 13,201 13,351 13,601 13,601 13,721 13,751 13,901 14,101 8,000 10,000 13,200 13,350 13,600 13,600 13,720 13,750 13,900 14,100 The tare weight of presented vehicle combinations varies from 12,005 t to 14,1 t. Two axle and three axle tractors are used. To calculate the maximum weight of the container that can be carried by a vehicle combination it is necessary to specify maximum gross vehicle and gross combination weight. Minimum and maximum payloads for different GCW of analysed vehicle combinations is given in Table 2. 30

4 GCW Gross combination weight Figure 2: Payloads of analysed vehicle combinations (maximum gross container weight) for different gross combination weight Table 2: Payload of analysed vehicle combinations and their suitability for carriage of of different weights MAX. GROSS COMBINATION WEIGHT No. of combinations PAYLOAD Combinations suitable for maximum container gross weight MIN. MAX. AVERAGE 26 t 27 t 28 t 29 t 30 t 31 t GCW ,899 27,995 26, GCW ,400 29,595 29, GCW ,899 31,995 30, The table above clearly specifies that the higher gross combination weight of 44 tonnes allowed for combine transport is suitable for transport of heavy and this difference of 4 tonnes equals, more or less, to the tare weight of the container. In term of maximum cargo loaded the difference between combine transport (44 tonnes) and direct road transport (40 tons) is negligible. 3 Cargo securing devices The typical general purpose container has anchoring points in sidewall corrugations at the roof and floor level and in front and rear corner posts. Certain have securing points also in front wall corrugations and front top rail and door rail. 31

5 3.1 Cargo securing devices in front end wall The typical front container wall has lashing bars in corner posts located diagonally, parallel or perpendicular to the front wall. Certain have lashing eyes in front wall corrugations (up and/or down) and lashing bars, eyes, hooks or openings in front top rail. front top rail corner castings front top rail lashing eyes in front wall corrugations 4U+4D lashing eyes in side wall corrugations 13UL+13UR+13 DL+13DR = 52 Explanations: R-right, L-left, U-up, D-down lashing bars in corner posts located parallel to the front wall 3L+3R Figure 3: Front wall and sidewalls of 42G1 K-LINE container (1AA-094A42G1D manufactured 7/2005) The typical container has 6 lashing bars in front corner posts. 6 lashing bars in front corner posts (3 pairs) has 48,88 % of analysed (see Table 2). 3.2 Cargo securing devices in sidewall corrugations According to the F.2.1 of ISO : securing devices shall not infringe on the prescribed minimum internal dimensions. Therefore they are located inside sidewall corrugations at the floor and roof level. Very rare are securing points located in corrugations in between. The location of securing points depends on how many corrugations the container has. There are typical 42 corrugations inside where 213 from 223 analysed has such type of corrugation. Certain of HANJIN has 46 corrugations. Certain cortainers of OJSC TransContainer has 61 corrugations and some old has 2 flat surfaces at the front part and rear part of container sidewall between corrugations (e.g. 2 corrugations, flat surface, 35 corrugations, flat surface, 2 corrugations). The typical location of securing points is in corrugation 1 st, 5 th, 9 th, 14 th, 19 th, 24 th, 29 th, 34 th, 38 th and 42 nd. 32

6 Table 3: Securing points in front wall of 42G1, 42G0, 45G1, 45G0 Location of securing Number of Number of Location of securing points points Corner posts front top rail corner castings front top rail front wall corrugations 42G0 42G1 45G1 Corner posts front top rail corner castings front top rail front wall corrugations 42G1 45G0 45G1 6/ / - - 3U 1 4/ / 2E 1E / / 2E / / - 3/ / - - 2U2D 1 10/ 2/ - 2U / 2/ I 2/ / / 2E / 2/ 3E 2U2D 3 10/ 2/ 2E - 1 6I / - - 3U3D U4D 2 1 4/ - - 3U3D / - 3H - 1 4/ - - 4U4D 1 1 6/ - 4O - 1 6/ 2/ 3/ 2U2D 2 6/ - 3E - 1 8/ - - 3U3D E 1E - 1 4/ - 3E / - 1/ - 1 8/ - - 4U 1 6/ 2E 3/ - 1 6/ 2/ / 2E U4D E 1E I - 3/ - 1 /...lashing bar diagonal to the corner of corner post, front top rail casting or front top rail -...lashing bar in corner post parallel to the front wall I...lashing bar in corner post perpendicular to the front wall H...hook E...lashing eye U...lashing eye in front wall corrugation UP D... lashing eye in front wall corrugation DOWN Certain have more securing points at the roof level than at the front level. These are particularly suitable for hanging garments. Twenty two from 223 meet the requirements of EN for the number and location of securing points. These have 24, 26 or 28 securing points at the floor level compared to typical 20 securing points at the floor level. 33

7 Table 4: Securing points at floor level in container sidewalls with 42 corrugations Container type Securing points Number of 42G0 42G1 45G0 45G1 total ; at floor level corrugation location 40; ;5;9;14;19;24;29;34;38; ;8;12;16;20;24;28;32;36; ;7;11;15;19;24;28;32;36; ;6;10;14;19;24;29;33;37; ;7;12;16;20;24;28;32;37; ;6;11;16;20;23;27;32;37; ;8;12;16;20;24;28;321;36; ;6;11;16;20;24;28;32;37; ;6;11;15;19;24;28;32;37; ;7;12;17;22;26;30;34;38; ;5;10;15;20;23;28;33;38; ;9;14;19;24;29;34;38; ;6;10;15;20;24;29;34;38; ; ;8;11;14;17;20;23;26;29;32;35; *1;5;9;13;17;20;23;26;30;34;38; *1;4;8;12;16;20;23;27;31;35;39; ;8;11;14;17;20;23;26;29;32;35;38; 1 1 2;6;10;14;17;20;23;26;30;34;38; ; ;9;14;19;24;29;34; ;8;13;19;24;30;35; ,9,14,19,24,29;34; ;7;13;19;25;31;37; ;6;12;18;24;30;36; ;7;12;18;25;31;36; ; *1;4;7;10;13;17;21;25;29;33;36;39; ;6;9;12;15;18;21;24;27;30;33;36; ;6;10;13;16;19;22;25;28;31;34;37;

8 Table 3: (continued) Container type Securing points total ; at floor level corrugation location 42G0 42G1 45G0 45G1 Number of 60; ;7;12;17;22;27;32;37; ; ;5;8;11;14;17;20;23;26;29;32;35;38; *1;5;8;11;14;17;20;23;26;29;32;35;38; ; ;5;8;11;14;17;20;23;26;29;32;35;38; ; ;6;10;14;18;22;26;30;34;38; ; ;7;12;17;22;27;32;37; ;6;11;16;22;27;32;37; ; *1;5;8;11;14;17;20;23;26;29;32;35;38; ;4;7;10;13;16;19;22;25;28;31;34;37; Sum total *... fulfilling requirements of EN for the number and location of securing points 3.3 Cargo securing devices at the rear doors The area at the rear doors usually consists of U-profile with lashing bars, door rail and door rail castings where securing points can be located. According to the F.2.3 of ISO : they shall not obstruct the door opening dimensions. Table 5: Securing points in U-profile Container type No. of lashing bars in U-profile 42G0 42G1 45G0 45G1 No. of No. of

9 door rail corner castings 2 lashing eyes door rail 3 lashing bars Figure 4: Rear wall and sidewalls of 42G1 MAERSK container (MDDS-40SS-021B manufactured 12/2007) The door u-profile has typically six lashing bars as front corner posts but also 4, 8 and 10 lashing bars frequently occurs. 174 from 223 have no securing points on the door rail or door rail castings. Certain have lashing eyes or lashing bars on door rail castings and lashing eyes, bars, holes or hooks on door rail. 4 Container walls strength The container walls are the first device to block the load against movements. The standard ISO requires that the sidewalls shall withstand 60% of payload and end walls 40% of payload uniformly distributed. All analysed fulfil this requirement. 5 Conclusions The forty foot general purpose container is designed to carry heavy loads. However, the securing of self-standing heavy loads without shoring or bracing is very difficult due to limiting number and strength of cargo securing devices. The use of anti-slip mats (from friction coefficient wood-wood 0,4 to rubber-wood 0,6) can solve the situation where lashings do not take so high forces arising during road, rail and deep sea carriage. The carriage of heavy loads with small contact area creates also difficulties due to limited floor capacity. Therefore the spreading of load is necessary. 36

10 Table 6: Securing points on door rail and door rail castings in analysed Securing points on door rail castings Securing points on door rail 42G0 42G1 45G0 45G1 No. of / E 3/ E 2E E 1E / O / 2E 3 3-2E E / 3O 1 1-4O 1 1 2/ 3/ 1 1-4H 1 1 2E No. of /...lashing bar diagonal to the corner of door rail casting or door rail E...lashing eye H...hook O...lashing hole References [1] STN ISO Series 1 freight Specification and testing Part 1: General cargo for general purpouse (October 1997) [2] STN EN Securing of cargo on road vehicles. Lashing points on commercial vehicles for goods transportation. (October 2001) [3] STN ISO 668 Series 1 freight. Classification, dimensions and ratings (November 2000) [4] STN ISO 3874 Series 1 freight. Handling and securing (November 2002) [5] Jagelčák, J. and Dávid, A. and Rožek, P. Námorné kontajnery. Žilinská univerzita v Žiline (2010). ISBN [6] Jagelčák, J.: Balenie a upevnenie nákladu pre paletizovaný nebezpečný náklad prepravovaný cestnou, železničnou a námornou dopravou. In: Doprava a spoje [elektronický zdroj] : internetový časopis. - ISSN Č. 1 (2010), s [7] ISO 830 Freight - Terminology Referee: doc. Ing. Vladimír Rievaj, PhD., University of Zilina Enter to publishing: 27 th October

11 This contribution is the result of the project implementation: Centre of excellence for systems and services of intelligent transport II., ITMS supported by the Research & Development Operational Programme funded by the ERDF. 38