https://doi.org/10.26552/com.C.2007.4.

30-33

Juraj Jagelcak *

EQUATION OF THE STANDARD EN 12195-1 STIPULATES

UNREASONABLE DEMANDS FOR CARGO SECURING

Cargo securing is a factor influencing safety and quality of transport considerably. In this paper the problem of calculation of over top
lashing to prevent tipping is mentioned. “European standard EN 12195-1 Load Restraint Assemblies. Safety. Part 1: Calculation of lashing
forces” stipulates unreasonable demand for number of over top lashings to prevent tipping of load. The calculation of number of lashings gives
infinite results for certain lashing angles. The reason can be found in equation (8) of the standard.

1. Introduction Because of the friction on the corners the force on the oppo-
site side is usually lower than the force on the tensioner side. This
How many lashing do we need, is often a big issue when it is presented in the calculation by k-factor with value 1.5 for over
comes to cargo securing. There are various demands for cargo top lashing with a tensioner on one side of the lashing only. The
securing in European countries. The demand for the number of value 1.5 means that on the side without a tensioner there is only
lashings is really confusing for international road haulers. The half of the force of the tensioner side. Of course, this value is very
lorry driver travelling through different countries of Europe is often conservative and measurements [9], [10] showed that also the
afraid of how many lashing straps or other equipment the con- values more than 2 are possible to measure. The value of k-factor
trolling authorities and consignors at loading sites will want to see mainly depends on the corner friction. The issue is clear. The use of
and if the straps are proper to use and fulfil the demands of stan- k-factor lower than 2 influences the number of lashings and which
dards or guidelines. Over top lashing, as the most frequent lashing is important to highlight is that no hauler wants to increase the
method, is used everywhere when it comes to cargo securing by number of lashings because it costs money.
lashing. But what the effectiveness of over top lashing is each driver
must take into consideration. The driver knows what the friction
and acceleration are and he also knows that the force on the oppo- 2. Over top lashing securing load against tipping
site side without a tensioner is lower when compared to the ten-
sioner side. These points are the main points influencing over top The results of equation (8) of standard EN 12195-1 for over top
lashing and these points create controversy between the EN 12195-1 lashing to prevent tipping are shown below. The illustration from
standard for calculation of lashing forces and IMO/ILO/UN ECE the standard is given in the following figure. By solving practical
Guidelines for packing cargo transport units (CTU’s). The dis- examples it was found out that equation (8) of the standard, as
cussion was opened during the work on European Best practice defined, creates unreasonable results which are practically unusable.
guidelines on cargo securing for road transport of the European com-
mission, and led after some years to the revision of European stan- According to equation (8) holds:
dard EN 12195-1 which is in a revision process now. The standard h w
is, as national standards, implemented in the EU but not obliga- Fx,y    n  FT  h  cos  Fz    n(k1) 
2 2
tory in all the member states. In several states the standard is only
on a voluntary base. The discussions of experts showed that the  FT  w  sin  n(k1)  FT  h  cos (1)
standard stipulates very high and costly demand on cargo securing
when it comes to over top lashing. Therefore it has been called for Modification of equation (8) gives the following equations for
the revision. a number of lashings:
– for load with the centre of gravity (CoG) in the geometrical
The main points of discussions were about friction, acceleration centre:
sideways and k-factor. K-factor was always the biggest problem 1 m  g  (cx,y  hcz  w)
during the discussions. The standard defines it as the “coefficient n    
2 FT  [(k1)  w  sin  (2k)  h  cos]
which allows for the loss of tension force due to friction between
lashing and load”. ⇒ equation (11) of the standard (2)

* Juraj Jagelcak
Department of Road and Urban Transport, Faculty of Operation and Economic of Transport and Communications, University of Zilina, Slovakia,
E-mail: [email protected]

30 ● KOMUNIKÁCIE / COMMUNICATIONS 4/2007

– for load with CoG off the geometrical centre: This happens because the calculation supposes the tensioners
m  g  (cx,y  d  cz  b) on one side only.
n   (3)
FT  [(k1)  w  sin  (2k)  h  cos]

Fig. 2 Influence of transmission factor “k” for number of lashings to

prevent tipping by using over top lashing according to EN 12195-1

Fig.1 Fig. 4 from EN 12195-1

The comparison of different calculation methods is shown in
the figure above. The worst situation is for tipping with k factors
When unstable loads are to be secured against tipping the sit- different from 2. For certain lashing angle the value is infinity and
uation is quite different. The EN 12195-1 standard calculates this for lower angles the values are negative. That means, from practical
equation by using the tensioners on one side only. The equation point of view, that infinite number of lashings can’t be used. As it
(8) should hold for load secured by one over top lashing only. For can be seen from the figure above this doesn’t correspond to the
load where more lashings are necessary the results of equations expected hyperbolical trend. What is the cause? The cause is k
are wrong. factor, strictly speaking, the difference between forces on the ten-
The following example explains the situation. The load with sioner side and opposite side. If we lash the load according to the
weight m  2000 kg, height h  2 m and width w  0.9 m are to method in Fig. 1 then, from theoretical point of view, the lashing
be secured sideways by over top lashing** with the lashing angle itself creates instability of the load and can cause tipping of the
of 66° and friction factor 0.3. The load is unstable sideways. For load with a sufficient number of lashings. This means, from prac-
this load we need, according to the formulas in the standard, 3 tical point of view, the tensioners can’t be placed on one side of
lashings to prevent sliding but 300 lashings to prevent tipping. the load only but must be placed alternately. This is also the
general demand for securing of load.
The number of lashings to prevent sliding: according to equa-
tion 5 of the standard: The lashing angle for infinite number of lashing can be found
m  g  (cx,y  D  cz) out from a denominator of eq. (11) of the standard:
n   
k  FT  sin  D
(k1)  w  sin  (2k)  h  cos  0 (6)

 
2000  9.81  (0.5  1  0.3) 2k h
   2.55 ⇒ 3lashings (4)   arctg    (7)
1.5  3750  sin 66°  33 k1 w
The number of lashings to prevent tipping according to equa- And for our example a is as follows:
tion 11 of the standard:
   
2k h 2 1.5 2
1 m  g  (cx,y  h  cz  w) 1   arctg     arctg    
k1 w 1.51 0.9
n       
2 F  [(k1)  w  sin   (2k)  h  cos] 2
T
 65.77225468… (8)
2000  9.81  (0.7  2  1  0.9)
   So we get real lashing angles for infinite number of lashings.
3750  [(1.51)  0.9  sin66°  (21.5)  2  cos66°]
Of course, this lashing angle is not possible to use but the angles
 300.08 ⇒ 300lashings (5) around this value still stipulate very high and also negative results.

** lashing straps LC  2500 daN, STF  375 daN

KOMUNIKÁCIE / COMMUNICATIONS 4/2007 ● 31

 In case of alternating tensioners the situation is as follows: if k  2 and cy  0.5 which present the requirements given in IMO
the result is as follows

 
h
m  g  cx,y    cz
w
n   
k  FT  sin

 
2
2000 9.81 0.5   1
0.9
   0.318 ⇒ 1lashing. (14)
2  3750  sin66°
According to the latest agreement from revision works the
experts decided to delete k factor in all equations of the standard
to avoid confusion in the future. As the calculations in the stan-
dard are based on theoretical principles, operational factors (when
applying top-over lashing) can positively or negatively impact the
required number of lashings, e.g.
– retention not feasible,
Fig. 3 Modified Fig. 4 of the standard EN 12195-1 for tensioners – self-tensioning effect,
placed alternately – influence of the corner frictions.

Modified eq. (8) of the standard is as follows: To compensate these uncertainties the safety factor of 1.1 is to
h w n be included. The k factor shall be deleted in all the equations [11].
Fx,y    Fz      k  FT  sin  w  0, (9) According to the other agreement unstable goods in combination
2 2 2
with over top lashing shall be calculated as follows

 
– for the load with CoG of the geometrical centre (GC): h
m  g  cx,y    cz
n w
Fx,y  d  Fz  b    k  FT  sin  w  0 (10) n    1.1 (15)
2 FT  sin
Then equations for the number of lashings should be as follows: which, for our example, gives

   
h 2
m  g  cx,y    cz 2000 9.81 0.5   1
w 0.9
n   , CoG in GC (11) n   1.1  0.350 ⇒ 1lashing.
k  FT  sin 7500  sin66°

2  m  g  (cx,y  d  cz  b)
n   , CoG off the GC (12) 3. Conclusion
k  FT  w  sin
where, for our example, holds: This paper presents that the calculation of over top lashing to

 
h prevent tipping according to standard EN 12195-1 is practically
m  g  cx,y    cz unacceptable. For certain lashing angles an unreasonable number
w
n    of over top lashings is calculated. Therefore, the work of experts,
k  FT  sin participating on revision works to achieve reasonable level of cargo
securing in road transport and to obtain the European standard

 
2 practically applicable all over the Europe, is very important.
2000 9.81 0.7   1
0.9
   2.121 ⇒ 3lashings (13)
1.5  3750  sin66°

References:

[1] JAGELCAK, J.: Top-over lashing securing the load against tipping, equation (8) of the standard EN 12195-1 stipulates infinite number
of lashings for specific lashing angles. University of Zilina, Department of Road and Urban Transport. Document CEN/TC
168/WG6 N 180, CEN 13.12.2006
[2] JAGELCAK, J.: Tension forces in top-over lashing & k- factor theoretical explanation and practical results. University of Zilina, Depart-
ment of Road and Urban Transport. Document CEN/TC 168/WG 6 N 191, 2. 1. 2007

32 ● KOMUNIKÁCIE / COMMUNICATIONS 4/2007

 [3] JAGELCAK, J., ANDERSSON, P.: Calculation of required number of top-over lashings for sliding and tilting sideways with different
input data, MariTerm AB, document CEN/TC 168/WG 6 N 209, 22. 5. 2007
[4] STN EN 12195-1 Load restraint assemblies. Safety, Part 1: Calculation of lashing forces
[5] VDI 2700 Ladungssicherung auf Straßenfahrzeugen, November 2004
[6] IMO/ILO/UN ECE Guidelines for Packing of Cargo Transport Units (CTUs), International Maritime Organization, London,
1997, ISBN 92-801-1443-3
[7] Safe Packing of Cargo Transport Units (CTUs) - COURSE, Model course 3.18, International Maritime Organization, London,
2001, ISBN 92-801-5116-9
[8] Safe Packing of Cargo Transport Units (CTUs) - WORKING BOOK with quick lashing guides for transport on road and in sea
areas A, B, & C, Model course 3.18, International Maritime Organization, London, 2001, ISBN 92-801-5127-4
[9] PETERSEN, S. S.: Practical tests of pretension ability, MariTerm AB. Document CEN/TC 168/WG 6 N 174, 06.12.2006
[10] DANEKAS, R: Expert’s report prepared on the issue: When lashing down, is the pretension force, which is applied on the ratchet side,
being reduced by friction in the area of the respective deflection leading to a lower pretension force of the side (loose end) that is oppos-
ing the ratchet, Von der Industrie und Handelskammer zu Aachen Offentlich Bestellter und Vereidigter Sachverstandiger fur
Ladungssicherung und Anschlagtechnik im Landverkehr, Document CEN/TC 168/WG 6 N 219, 12. 06. 2007
[11] Report of the 15th meeting of CEN/TC 168/WG 6 on 19/20 June 2007 in Stockholm, Document CEN/TC 168/WG 6 N 221,
03.07.2007.

KOMUNIKÁCIE / COMMUNICATIONS 4/2007 ● 33