Assessing lashings that are doubled

Figure 1
Consider the illustration above as a lashing configuration used on a flatrack. The blue line represents a
wire rope secured directly to the cargo. One end of the wire rope is secured to a pad eye, the other end
is connected to a turn-buckle, which in turn is secured to another pad eye. The cargo unit has a/an (pad)
eye that the wire rope can pass through, in such a way as illustrated above.
MSL assumptions: flat rack pad eyes (50kN); wire rope (100kN); turnbuckle (80kN); eye on cargo unit
(not known, but assumed to be substantial)
Question: What is the MSL of the whole arrangement?
Is it 80kN, with the single turn-buckle assessed as the weakest link? (Argument 1)
Or is it 100kN, with two flat rack pad eyes assessed as the weakest link, since the wire rope is doubled?
(Argument 2)
The reasoning for Argument 1 is straightforward: the whole system is all connected. If the turn-buckle
breaks, the whole thing gives way. It does not matter whether the wire rope is considered single or
double since with one break of one of the parts, the system provides zero securing force.
The reasoning for Argument 2 appears to be clear too. The wire rope is looped back and doubled,
essentially making the arrangement as if two single wire ropes were used, connected to separate pad
Cargo
eyes. Consider the CW200 strap: the MSL of its system configuration is double that of its single MSL.
If doubling works for this CW200, why would it not work for other types of lashing materials?
Both arguments appear to be valid at first glance.
Argument 1 however seems to be weak. If the same logic (all connected as a single system) is applied
throughout, then the MSL of the arrangement should be that of the weakest member, which is 50 kN a
single pad eye. If any one of the pad eye breaks, then the whole arrangement gives way.
Argument 2 can be complicated with further analysis.
Consider the whole arrangement turned upside down, with the cargo hanging and therefore providing
constant pulling force on the lashing (supporting) arrangement, as shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2
The force borne by each of the vertical rope is half of the weight of the cargo. Each of the rope should
theoretically share an equal amount of the load. If we are to insert a spring balance (Figure 3), it should
read 0.5w.

Figure 3. Spring balance
w
If the vertical rope is angled, as shown below in Figure 4, the rope itself bears a slightly heavier load

0.5
cos
, but its vertical component is still the same half of the load, and borne equally with the other
rope.

Figure 4
What if the ropes are joined together, essentially making it as if it is only a single rope as shown in Figure
5? The spring balance should still read
0.5
cos
. Why would it be any different?

Figure 5
This means that if a turn-buckle is used, the turn-buckle is NOT going to bear the whole weight of the
cargo (w), but only a fraction of it. The exact weight it will bear will depend on where it will be placed (it
could be
0.5
cos
or (0.5tan)). This seems to support Argument 2, at the expense of Argument 1. The
turn-buckle alone cannot be the weakest link because it shares the load with other components of the
lashing arrangement.
w
0.5w
0.5wtan
0.5w/cos

w
0.5w/cos
The questionable part now is what is going on at the junction point where the wire rope passes through
the cargo eye and loops back? Is the wire rope, at the junction point, being subjected to a tension force
that tends to tear the rope apart, equal to w?

Figure 6
In Figure 4, it has been resolved that the horizontal component of one leg of the wire rope was
(0.5tan). The tension force at the junction point can therefore be considered as twice that
amount:(tan) (Assumption 1). If both legs of the wire rope is vertically straight up, as shown in
Figure 7, the angle is equal to zero, and since tan is zero, then there is no tension force at all!

Figure 7
A zero tension force at the junction point is hard to imagine. Where did the force(s) go? There can be
two other possible explanations why this can be true. One, all the tension force which is perpendicular
to the pull of the lashings legs have been converted to forces parallel to the legs. This pulling force, at
the junction point, is being transferred to the eye bolt of the cargo. The tension force that tends to rip
the rope apart becomes a force that tends to crush it against the eye bolt. Two, the perpendicular
tension force probably is asymptotic continually approaching zero, but never does.
What is a safer supposition to make out of Assumption 1 is that the lesser angle is, the less the tension
force is.
w
w?
w
T =f() =wtan
T =f(0) =0
Therefore if the angle is small enough, the junction point should not present a major issue in the
consideration of lashing forces. This supports Argument 2: a lashing material that loops back or doubled
should be considered as if two singles are used.
The math and physics so far has assumed that the lashing material will be of the same strength whether
it is used straight or bent. It has been part of good seamanship knowledge however that a bent rope
losses some of its strength. Correct rope and sheave diameter ratios are known. Figure 8 below shows a
graph of the strength efficiency of wire rope vs. sheave pitch diameter ratio.

Figure 8
1

The graph shows that with a one-to-one wire rope/sheave diameter ratio, the strength of the wire rope
is reduced by half (Assumption 2). But if we go back to the assumption that the tension force at the
junction point with vertical legs is near zero, then a wire rope strength which is reduced would not
matter.
As long as (0.5 > tan)(Assumption 3), the whole lashing arrangement should be acceptable.
(where R = strength of the wire rope)
Assumption 3 formula can also be expressed as: < tan
1
05.

The next question is: what angle is safe to make the lashing arrangement acceptable? Table 1 below
shows different load to rope strength ratios, and the corresponding maximum angle allowed.
1
http://www.gunnebojohnson.com/wp-content/uploads/rigging.pdf

Table 1


The heavier the load, the less the angle should be.

In real practice, there are only two lashing materials commonly arranged in the manner discussed here
(where angle can be greater than zero): wire ropes and chains.
Below is a table that considers different combinations of these materials. In the table, Config MSL
(configuration) is the MSL of the arrangement based on the assumption that the lash material strength is
doubled.
The w that is used in the table is also the config MSL, since that is the maximum load the lashing
arrangement can safely bear. The highest load should be used to find the least value angle can
maximally go to.
Angle is the angle between normal and the lash material. In real practice, the angle between the two
legs of the lash material is more easily measured, therefore 2 is also tabulated.
(The MSL of materials used in table is based on Norfolk Office MSLs)

R w R:w
10 50 5 6
10 20 2 14
10 10 1 27
10 5 0.5 45
10 2 0.2 68
Table 2

The least maximum angle between legs in the possible combinations listed above is 27.


The conclusion that can be derived from this discussion is that, if Assumption 1, Assumption 2, and
Assumption 3 are valid, looped-back or doubled lash materials can indeed be assessed as if two single
lash materials are used. The angle between the two legs should be a small as possible, but should
conservatively be less than 15(?).





Lash Pad eye T/B Config MSL R w R:w 2
W/R 5/8"
(78)
7/8"
(49)
1"
(83)
2x49 =
(98) 78 98 1.3 22 43
W/R 5/8"
(78)
1"
(65)
1"
(83)
2x65 =
(130) 78 130 1.7 17 33
W/R 5/8"
(78)
7/8"
(82)
1"
(83)
2x78 =
(156) 78 156 2.0 14 28
Chain 3/8"
(36)
7/8"
(49)
n/a
2x36 =
(72) 78 72 0.9 28 57
Chain 3/8"
(36)
1"
(65)
n/a
2x49 =
(98) 78 72 0.9 28 57
Chain 3/8"
(36)
7/8"
(82)
n/a
2x49 =
(98) 78 72 0.9 28 57
Chain 1/2"
(100)
7/8"
(49)
n/a
2x49 =
(98) 78 98 1.3 22 43
Chain 1/2"
(100)
1"
(65)
n/a
2x65 =
(130) 78 130 1.7 17 33
Chain 1/2"
(100)
7/8"
(82)
n/a
2x82 =
(164) 78 164 2.1 13 27
Materials (MSL kN) Forces
Other Considerations:
1. The forces considered here is for static condition. Onboard a vessel, acceleration forces may
cause those forces to increase.
2. The forces considered and calculated is for symmetrical set-up of the lashing legs. If
unsymmetrical, as illustrated in Figure 1, the values will be different.
3. One way that the concern of a failure of the whole arrangement due to a break of one
component can be addressed is to choke the wire rope (if using this lash material) at the
junction point with wire clips. Choking the junction point will solve two issues: the tension on
the wire rope at the junction point will be relieved, and; if one component of one leg breaks, the
other leg is still usable. This may not be practical in the real world though. Also, the wire clips
are designed to prevent the wire ropes from slipping, not withstand a tension force that will
tend to rip it in two.
4. Another way that this idea of doubled strength can be supported it to recall that table of
breaking strengths provided by CordLash. The test was conducted by Germanischer Lloyd and
the results showed that the breaking strength for system configuration is roughly double that
of a single configuration.
5. The OSHA Guide on Safe Sling Use (http://www.osha.gov/dsg/guidance/slings/tables-
figures.html#table7) can also be interpreted to support a doubled strength assessment.