Combined Learning Objectives for Safer European Roads
Practical Case 1 – Assessment Comments
Prepared by: IRU
with contributions from:

www.formation-arrimage.com
WP 4  Deliverable: 17, 18, 19  Last update: 29 July 2017
2
INDEX
COMMENTS ON INSPECTION REPORT ............................................................................... 3
SAFE ALTERNATIVE SECURING ARRANGEMENT ................................................................. 8
3
COMMENTS ON INSPECTION REPORT
Let us first see whether the type of vehicle used effectively contributes to cargo
securing. In this case, no wall is used to block the goods.
4
Reference Description
10.5
Lashing points
10.5.1
Not capable of bearing required
lashing forces
Applicable? Minor Major Dangerous
x
x
No lashing points are fitted on this type of trailer. Instead, the driver uses the outer edges (right
picture) as attachment points.
Note that if the control officer considers the strength of the outer frame is sufficient, its use could
be accepted.
5
Reference Description
20.3
Load-restraint devices used
20.3.5
Use of the load-restraint wrong (e.g.
absence of edge protection)
20.3.6
Fastening of the load-restraint devices
inappropriate
Less than 2/3 of required strength
Applicable? Minor Major Dangerous
x
x
x
x
x
x
Let us now assess the securing technique used.
The chosen technique is the frictional method. For it to be effective, the equipment used must be
appropriate and well fitted. In this case, the lashing’s hooks are unsuitable: it is strictly forbidden to
use this type of hook (two-pronged, left picture) in this way. When tensioning the lashing, this hook
may bend, and it may slip upon braking. There are other types of hooks suitable for this type of
attachment (middle picture).
We also see that the lashing is twisted (right picture), causing a significant loss of efficiency upon
tensioning.
6
With the frictional technique, we need the following values to calculate the number of
lashings required:
- friction
- STF value of the securing device
- angle of the securing device relative to the platform
- total mass to be secured
The use of anti-slip mats can make all the difference by increasing friction. In this case, the
absence of anti-slip mats means that the friction coefficient is 0.3 (sawn wood against metal).
Note that in the case of a composite floor (wood and metal, in this example) the lowest value
should be used (metal, in our example).
In this case the securing equipment does all the work to prevent the load from moving, in the
absence of anti-slip mats.
7
Reference Description
20.2
Friction (pressure) securing
20.2.1
Attainment of the required securing
strengths
20.2.1.1
The required securing strengths are
inadequate
Less than 2/3 of required strength
10.5
Lashing points
10.5.2
Insufficient number
Insufficient number for bearing required
lashing forces
Applicable? Minor Major Dangerous
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
In this case, the type of hook used is incorrect and the blocks are not secured. Assuming, however, that
the hooks would be suitable, let us now look at the lashings.
The lashings are in good overall condition and the technical label indicates that they comply with the
EN12195-2 standard.
Let us calculate the number of lashings that would be needed to secure the load (if both the hooks and
the lashing points were correct). The STF value on the technical label is 400 daN. Here the angle of the
lashing is optimal (90°).
The calculation result indicates that 16 lashings (against 3) would be needed for the 6-tonne block, and
19 (against 3) for the 7-tonne block: due to the sum of adverse criteria, the pressure force is
insufficient to counter the inertial forces potentially affecting the load.
Finally, let us not forget to correct the problem of the rafter (right picture) between the two blocks of
stone. The low angle suggests that low pressure is applied and that securing is insufficient. Badly
secured, it is also dangerous.
8
SAFE ALTERNATIVE SECURING ARRANGEMENT
For cargo securing, the main thing is to secure the load properly, rather than to implement a
particular technique. Below is an example of a solution (among others) which would have served to
safely secure this load.
Equipment used:
Trailer with several lashing points
6 wide-base rafters supporting large masses with non-slip surface certified µ = 0.6
8 lashings with a capacity of STF 400 daN / LC 2500 daN
9
2 2000 kg slings serving as attachment points on the blocks (for the spring lashing technique)
Edge protectors
Securing technique used:
Combination of spring and pressure lashing.
For each block, a spring lashing made of 2 lashings and 1 sling counters the acceleration exerted
forward, and a frictional securing made of 2 lashings pins down the load to prevent upward vertical
acceleration (jolts caused by the road).
Thanks to the rafters, the friction coefficient alone is sufficiently high to counteract rearward and
sideward acceleration.
10
List of references:
Annexes:
For further information on the project please consult:
www.euro-controle-route.eu/closer/