Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001

Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

3. TRANSPORT

3.1. HYDRAULIC PLATFORM TRAILERS (CONVENTIONAL TRAILERS)

Hydraulic platform trailers is the name given to trailers that offer a flat bed (platform) with
hydraulic suspension and some level of steering to the wheeled axles. They are often
modular comprising of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 axles (or more) units that can be combined to
form larger trailers in terms of length, width and capacity.

In a conventional spring suspension typically used in cars and trucks the wheels rest
elastically on the ground. The loads imposed on the ground are then proportional to the
compression of each spring and vary greatly from one wheel to another according to the
level of the ground.

The suspension may be acceptable for usual road vehicles of four or six wheels, but would
not be satisfactory for a trailer with numerous wheels spread over a great length as some
wheels would lose contact with the ground. Moreover it would be impossible to determine
the wheel loads imposed on the ground.
In order to overcome these limitations and allow the trailer to be modular, units of
suspension were developed. Suspensions or suspension legs are repetitive and similar
through the trailer and comprise of the following:

1. Cast or fabricated leg with knee joint incorporating the hydraulic single acting
cylinder which forms the suspension;
2. Rotating bearing which connects the suspension leg to the underside of the trailer
chassis allows the trailer to be steered:
3. Narrow track oscillating axle often called a pendulum axle.

Page 51 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

The wheels thus naturally follow the transverse road profile, especially the camber, and as
the hydraulic cylinders are connected in groups the pressures equalise across the
cylinders imposing the same wheel loads to the ground and compensate for the change in
level with the stroke of the cylinder. Connecting a steering system to each of the
suspension legs allows the trailer to be steered.

The axle of a trailer in Heavy Transport is the name generally given to the axle and wheels
combined. The length of this axle wheel combination defines the minimum width the trailer
can be reduced to and is given a special term called a file. An axle line represents a line of
axles across the width of a trailer.

The photograph below shows two files.

Trailers sizes are defined by the following notation: no. of trailers x no. of files x no. of
axle lines

For example, 1 x 2 x 10 is the notation given to a single 2 file 10 axle line trailer below.

10 axle lines

2 file

Page 52 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

STEERING

Hydraulic platform trailers differ from vehicle steering systems in that the steer round a
fixed axle in the centre if the trailer rather than at the rear as on most conventional cars
and trucks but are still based on Ackermann steering geometry. The intention of
Ackermann geometry is to avoid the need for tyres to slip sideways or scrub when
following the path around a curve.

The geometrical solution to this is for all wheels to have their axles arranged as radii of a
circle with a common centre point. As the centre wheels are fixed, this centre point must be
on a line extended from the centre axle of the trailer. Intersecting the axes of the front
wheels on this line as well requires that the inside front wheel is turned, when steering,
through a greater angle than the outside wheel.

See below

The maximum steering angle of each suspension leg is typically 45o however newer
equipment has seen this increase to 55o. Therefore by linking the suspension legs
together mechanically using rods each suspension leg can be set to steer at the optimum
position to approximate Ackermann steering geometry.

Page 53 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

3.2. HYDRAULIC NECK

A hydraulic neck is the name given a trailer component that allows the modules of
hydraulic platform trailers to be connected to the fifth wheel of an artic truck unit rather than
using a drawbar. As the name suggests there is also hydraulic cylinders incorporated in
the neck to steer the trailer and also allow a controlled proportion of the load to be
transferred to the truck unit to increase the available tractive effort of the truck and even out
axle loadings of the transportation arrangement.

4 axle lines

Bed

2 axle lines

Neck

As the trailer modules are steerable, steering is initiated through wedges in the neck which
fit into the fifth wheel on the truck and by virtue of the truck position relative to the trailer
wedges are linked to hydraulic cylinders which in turn move the rods that are attached to
the axles on the trailer.

Page 54 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Hydraulic necks are predominately used for road work where the more compact shorter
overall length of vehicle is desirable to meet permit requirements but the limitation on
steering functionality is not likely to be problem.

Wedges

Hydraulic cylinders to allow control

of load transfer

Fifth wheel

Page 55 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

3.3. BEDS AND SPACERS

Beds and spacers are used to increase the functionality of the modular trailer fleet. Bed is
the name given to a structure with no axles which is normally inserted between two sets of
axles offering a loading platform much lower than the height of the trailer bed. Obviously
this would allow higher loads to be carried at reduced heights and lower the centre of
gravity relative to the trailer.

Beds

Beds can come in various capacities, lengths, widths and heights and some are even
modular to allow bed lengths to be varied.
The limitation of beds tend to be their physical size as they tend to come fixed however
they are also limited by the structural strength of the modules attached to them as there is
a limit to how far the load on the bed can be distributed to the adjoining unsupported axles.
Therefore bed trailers tend to be limited to 5 axles either end of the bed.

An example of a 3 – bed – 3 arrangement with draw bar:

Page 56 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Spacers

Spacers are chassis modules without axles used to extend a trailer length were appropriate
and can be load and non-loading bearing. The trailer bed is normally maintained however
tubular spacers are available to assist in positioning and maintain trailers in the desired
location under the load.
Spacers are normally limited by their structural strength but used correctly can provide a
cost effective transport solution in some instances.

Page 57 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

3.4. SUPPORTING LOADS BETWEEN TWO TRAILERS

There are two methods commonly used, one is by attachments on the load either end
acting as cantilevered extensions, namely end suspension and the other is by
supporting the load on the underside, directly or by special load bearing structures
(e.g. saddles) which is termed bolster support.
In both cases the support to the trailer is through a central pivot member, known as
bolster. The bolster should not be confused with a turntable which only offers one
degrees of freedom and is a name given to equipment for rotating equipment in one
plane (e.g. turntables used for turning Transformers
3.4.1. Bolster Support
Bolsters are always arranged to accept longitudinal oscillations to allow the trailer to
follow undulations and changes of grade freely without stressing the load, but where
transverse oscillation is concerned there are two opposing fields of thought and this
relates to the three and four point suspension principles.

3.4.2. 3 Point Bolster Support Arrangements

In most designs the main support is through a central pivot or ball and cup, which
would indicate only one single point on each trailer and to ensure that load is
controlled from tipping over, slipper pads or structural support with radial movements is
provided on one trailer (scissor mechanisms), this is usually arranged at the rear to
enable the trailer operator to steer and rectify levels of that trailer, which in turn will
control the load, due to the stable supports on that trailer. The other supporting trailer
has free oscillation in both planes on the bolster and the load is imposed through the
central pivot to that trailer. The geometry of this system reduces the stability base of
the load by a further 50% if the C of G is centrally positioned between the front and
rear trailer, and under all circumstances if the C of G is off centre it should be arranged
nearer to the single oscillating (fixed) bolster and never to the fully oscillating (free)
bolster.

Note: When using three point support with bolsters it is good practice to install
the slippers on the free bolster with some operating clearance, typically
75mm. When the load tips excessively, a four point system is created
which gives more stability and allows the operator on the front trailer to
recover the three point stability system.
PIVOT (BALL & CUP) SLIPPER PADS
Fixed bolster

ELEVATION END ELEVATION

PIVOT (BALL & CUP)

Free bolster

ELEVATION END ELEVATION

Free Fixed
Page 58 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

3.4.3. 4 Point Bolster Support Arrangements

In this arrangement slippers are used on both front and rear bolsters to create a four
point support which creates a rectangular stability diagram, therefore a larger base
that the three point design but at the sacrifice of operator control and possible

overstressing of the trailers and load.

When the trailer and bolsters are at different transverse angles, due to changes in
cross fall or due to a manoeuvre in which the other trailer is on a curved path on a
changing gradient, the result is that either the trailer frame, bolsters or lashing
equipment will be strained on diagonally opposite ends, or in the case of a round
vessel with one end held by a wrap around type of security, the twist will cause rotation
between the vessel and that bolster. If the same situation is applied to a flexible load
then the load maybe overstressed.
The control related to this 4 point system will permit adjustment to suspensions to
prevent or reduce the twist or torsional action, but it is slow and due to stability
problems which may coincide with this twisting effect it can be hazardous unless the
road speed is so slow that the operator can comfortably control the load with due
consideration of his actions.

Saddle lashed to
trailer

Page 59 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

3.4.4. Fixing Bolsters to Trailers

To utilize the trailers in the fleet to their maximum, bolsters are normally separate
pieces of equipment that are attached to the desired trailers to carry out bolster work.
The securing design has to take into account the transport forces associated with
pulling and braking as well as any uplift that may take place due to tipping. The bolster
is normally located with welded shear blocks to the underside of the bolster base plate
positioned adjacent to main trailer chassis members. These are positioned to resist
movement both laterally and longitudinally.

Bolt
connection

Flange of
trailer
chassis

Shear
blocks

Uplift is normally resisted by cover plates that locate on these shear blocks using bolts
and bear on underside of the top flange of the trailer chassis.
Note: on newer trailers and SPMT’s where the available windows in the trailer platform
are reduced, the bolsters are normally secured by attaching them to the sides of the
trailer where the trailer transverse coupling points are. Careful consideration must be
given to these designs to ensure the transport forces are transferred correctly.

Bolsters available within the ALE Fleet:

Bolster Capacity as a pair
50t 100t
100t 200t
250t 500t
300t 600t
450t 900t
650t 1300t
1500t 3000t

Page 60 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

3.4.5. Trailer Ties

When using bolsters on trailers with one or more tractors pulling from the front, the
pulling force from the tractor has to be transferred to both trailers. For this to happen
the forces dragging the rear trailer have to transfer through the interfaces between the
trailer/bolster and bolster/load (normally the saddle). To avoid these forces going
through the saddles, ties can be connected between the front and rear bolster top
plates. Tirfor wires are normally used for trailer ties.

When the tractor is pushing a load on bolsters the Tirfor wires will have no effect and
the horizontal forces have to be resolved by securing the saddles to the load using
lashing chains.

Note: The Tirfor wires also act as useful point to attach air lines and electrical feeds to
the rear trailer as necessary.

Page 61 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

3.4.6. End Suspension

End suspension is a term given to supporting a load by constructing structural
steelwork cantilevers on either end and connecting them to trailers via bolsters and
therefore the load becoming integral part of the trailer. This method is normally
adopted on long vessels or cold boxes with the advantage of maximising the height of
the load and minimising the dead weight of the transport equipment.

C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

m
u
s
t

b
e

g
i
v
en to the effect on the mountings at the bolster due to braking. The mountings must be
able to take the support trailer braking force and also if the C of G is in a different
plane to that of the bolster pivot, a moment will develop and must be accounted for in
the design.

Page 62 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Schnabel car is a railway term given to a specialized type of railroad freight car. It is
designed to carry heavy and oversized loads in such a way that the load itself makes
up part of the car. The load is suspended between the two ends of the cars by lifting
arms; the lifting arms are connected to a pivot above an assembly of pivots and frames
that carry the weight of the load and the lifting arm on rail bogies.

The frames can also be transhipped to platform trailers and used to move load on road
networks similar to girder trailers below.

3.4.7. Girder Frame

Girder frames are basically two beams braced together and used to both support a
load and distribute its weight between two sets of trailers positioned at either end of the
transport arrangement. Loads transported in this manner are normally supported on
the girder beams and suspended between trailers allowing cargo height to be
maximised but still maintaining a manoeuvrable trailer solution compared to the
equivalent flat top. Where carrying shelves are not available, cross beams can be
used between the girders to support the load.

Page 63 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Girder Frames comprise of the following main elements:

Neck Load spreader Steer cab

Tower & bolster

Front bogie Rear bogie

Draw bar
Girder beam Tie-barrels

• Front and rear hydraulic platform trailers (bogies)

• Load Spreaders
• Towers normally incorporating a hydraulic lift cylinder
• Bolsters
• Necks
• Tie-barrels
• Girder beams

ALE operate a range of girder trailers to transport loads up to 400 tonnes:

Girder Capacity(t) No. of Axle Daylight (mm) Girder Beam

Frame Lines Length(mm)
AL 22-24 180 2 x 2 x 6 or 7 1940 to 5440 7500 or 9000
AL 50 240 2 x 2 x 7 or 8 2350 to 4750 10000
AL 100 320 2 x 2 x 10 or 11 2400 to 4500 9845 (Min.)
AL 30-40 400 2 x 2 x 10 to 15 2340 to 4500 10650 / 13000
AL500 400 2 x 2 x 11 to 16 2340 to 5000 10650 / 13000

Note: Daylight is the term given to the distance between the inside of the girder beams
and is the main dimension given to the operators to set up the girder frame for a
particular operation.

Values show are typical however additional is available to accommodate larger

dimensioned loads

Page 64 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

3.4.8. Automatic Steering

On girder frame trailers the rear bogie is operated by a Steersman normally situated in
the rear cab. On routes where there are long straights and gentle curves it is normal to
switch the trailer into automatic steering mode.

Automatic steering is when a system of steering control is fitted to the second trailer in
a combination of two, where the leading trailer is steered from the drawbar coupled to
a tractor and the rear trailer is drawn by the connection of the load or frame supported
by bolster to the midpoint of each. The automatic system maybe mechanical, operated
by a rod system from the bolster using the radial swing of the bolster as a lever to
actuate the steering system on the trailer. The ratio of leverages is related to the
distance apart of the trailer centres and the length of the rear trailer. The alternative is
a hydraulic system in which cylinders are fitted to the bolster and again actuated by the
radial movement of the bolster as it turns the oil transfer system is used to power the
steering cylinders. Control valves enable the use of automatic or manual steering as
required.

Page 65 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

3.4.9. Prime Movers

Prime mover in heavy transport is the name given to the vehicle that provides the
motive power to haul the load also commonly known as truck, tractor unit or ballast
truck/tractor.

ALE operate a range of vehicles for moving heavy loads from heavy duty artic units
which are basically upgraded towing units of the articulated trucks (or semi-trailer
truck) you see on the roads to fully ballasted 45 tonne tractors with all axles driven.
The table below details the variety of vehicles available:

Description Drive Configuration Capacity(tonnes) Transmission

50-150t Artic 6x2 80 Manual
Tractor
50-150t Artic 6x4 150 Manual
Tractor
Artic/Ballast 6x4 200 Manual
Tractor
Artic/Ballast 8x4 250 Automatic
Tractor
Ballasted Tractor 6x6 250 Automatic
Ballasted Tractor 8x8 300 Automatic

The main distinction to make between the trucks is the use of ballast. Un-ballasted
trucks pull the load from the fifth wheel whereas a ballast truck is designed to pull or
push loads using a drawbar.

For a ballast truck, ballast is added over the driving wheels to increase the available
tractive effort. The additional weight increases the friction between the tyres and the
road surface. A strong chassis is also required to support the extra weight of the
ballast and the pulling forces imposed by the drawbar.

The drive systems of trucks comprise of the following:

• Engine
• Clutch or Torque Convertor
• Gear Box
• Transfer Gear Box (or Drop Box)
• Drive Axles
• Tyres
• Brakes

Note: The standard twin shoe power operated assemblies and usually with the ‘S’ cam
are the most commonly used in heavy duty trucks and have proved the most capable
of withstanding the arduous conditions of operation. However it must be noted that
although these brakes are more than adequate for the truck itself they are far from
able to cope with the gross train weight. It is therefore essential that the trailer has
adequate brake capacity and also that sufficient air compressor output is available to
cope with the multi-axle brake demands of the trailers hauled.

Page 66 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Tractive Effort

The power of a prime mover is the tractive effort, also called rim pull or pulling force,
which it can deliver and is dependent on the following vehicle characteristics:

• Engine torque
• Transmission ratio
• Axle ratio
• Tyre size
• Driveline overall efficiency

To calculate the tractive effort in Newtons the following formula is used:

Tractive Effort (TE) =

(Net Torque (N) x Transmission Ratio x Axle Ratio X Driveline Efficiency)/Tyre Radius (m)

This force has to overcome the following depending on what position the transportation
arrangement is in during the movement:

Restart resistance (RS) of the transportation arrangement if starting from a stop;

Rolling resistance (RR) of the transportation arrangement when moving;
Grade resistance (GR) when climbing a hill etc.

The restart resistance is the starting resistance or start-ability which is basically the
force that has to be overcome from a stand still position or dead stop. Obviously this is
particularly important when the transport has to stop on a gradient and set off again.

When trucks are fitted with clutches, the clutch slips when pulling away from stand-still
and reduces the first gear grade-ability. A standard clutch is not a torque convertor –
it’s there to interrupt the power (Nm) flowing into a gearbox and unlike an automatic
transmission with torque convertor, a clutch does not multiply torque when a truck
starts to pull off on a gradient.

Some manual gearbox trucks have a ‘crawler’ gear or low ratio first gear that is
designed to deal with start-ability emergencies and move a truck out of a ‘hole’ but it is
for that only and is not designed to be shifted on the move into the next gear. The
crawler gear should be used to get to a less severe gradient and then start off in
second. This is where an automatic transmission has an advantage as it can effect a
shift change at very low speeds.

Values used in house for restart resistance range from 2.5 to 4.0%.

The rolling resistance is mainly the resistance that comes from normal tyre deflection –
the deformation of the tyre tread as it makes its “footprint” on the road surface or the
deformation of the surface or both. Rolling resistance is a coefficient and often
expressed as a percentage. Obviously this varies for different surfaces and typical
examples are given below:

Page 67 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Road Surface Condition Rolling resistance

Concrete Excellent 1.00
Good 1.50
Poor 2.00
Asphalt Good 1.25
Fair 1.75
Poor 2.25
Macadam Good 1.50
Fair 2.25
Poor 3.75
Cobbles Ordinary 5.50
Poor 8.50
Snow 50mm 2.50
100mm 3.75
Dirt Smooth 2.50

Road Surface Condition Traction coefficient

Concrete Dry 0.85
Wet 0.55
Asphalt Dry 0.80
Wet 0.50
Macadam Dry 0.80
Wet 0.50
Cobbles Dry 0.60
Wet 0.30
Snow / Ice 0.10
Dirt Smooth 0.50

(Source: ALE Load Lashing Standard)

Grade Resistance

When climbing a gradient, the pull of gravity acts against the transportation
arrangement and is another force that must be overcome by the prime mover(s). It is
calculated as follows:

% Grade x GCW (tonnes)

Traction Limits

So far the formulas used when calculating tractive effort are related to the forces
produced from the tyres in a non slip situation, that is 100% drive, to calculate the
actual tractive effort available it is necessary to consider the weight on the drive axles
and adhesion coefficients between the tyre and running surface. The traction
coefficients can be obtained from the table above and applied to the drive axle weights
for the truck. If the tractive limit is less than the tractive effort available, the drive
wheels will spin.

Page 68 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

3.5. SPMT – SELF PROPELLED MODULAR TRANSPORTERS

History
During the 1980’s the weights of offshore modules increased dramatically. Designs were in
place for modules in the 10,000Te range. The current method of loadout was for modules
to be towed by multiple tractor units on conventional trailers, and then winched onto the
barges using several winches, with tractor units trailing to remove the transporters at the
end of the loadout, or as the recovery mechanism in the event of an emergency abort
retrieval system. Confined European construction yards (most built on the ruins of old
shipyards) were also becoming a problem for conventional trailers.
Shipyards were already operating a form of self propelled transporter, although these were
of a fixed platform size and length, for moving ship block units around shipyards. In some
cases these units could bolt together side by side to increase capacity. It is from these
early seeds that the SPMT was developed.
Certain limiting parameters were created that allowed the various manufactures to offer
suitable equipment.
These included:
• Individual weight not to exceed 24t to keep the overall weight to road limits for
transport
• Width not to exceed 2.43m (8 ft) in order to fit road transport and shipping flat racks
• Capacity 30t per line as most barges and construction sites were good for 10t/m2.
• Full 360 degree steering.
Within these parameters the competing designs from Kamag and Scheuerle evolved.
To accommodate all the items required the running height increased from the nominal 1m
to 1.5m.
Although similar in size, axle spacing and appearance, there was no commonality between
the two. Both were developed in 4 and 6 axle modules with powerpacks.
Shortly afterwards, Nicholas entered the market with the Hyspec transporter. This had
been developed in conjunction with Econofreight, to improve on some of the aspects of the
original equipment.

Page 69 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Equipment differences

The following identifying differences appear between the 3 main types.

Kamag Scheuerle SPMT 2nd Generation

Design Capacity (inc self weight) – Design Capacity (inc self weight) –
34Te per axle 36Te per axle
Top coupling – 8 bolts Top coupling – 4 large bolts
Mid coupling – 2 bolts Centre Coupling – Hydraulic pin
Bottom Coupling – Hydraulic pin Inter module connections – manual
Inter module connections – manual connection.
connection. Powerpack – water cooled diesel
Powerpack – water cooled diesel 4 file centre spacing – 2.9m
4 file centre spacing – 2.9m Steering – hydraulic ram?
Steering – hydraulic ram?
Scheuerle SPMT 3rd Generation
Nicholas Hyspec
Design Capacity (inc self weight) –
Design Capacity (inc self weight) – 40Te per axle
36Te per axle Top coupling – 4 large bolts
Top coupling – 4 large bolts Centre Coupling – Hydraulic pin
Bottom Coupling – Hydraulic pin Inter module connections – manual
Inter module connections – self connection.
sealing couplers. Powerpack – water cooled diesel
Powerpack – Air cooled diesel 4 file centre spacing – 2.9m
4 file centre spacing – 2.83m Steering – hydraulic ram
Steering – Hydraulic steering motor
Scheuerle SPMT 4th Generation
st
Scheuerle SPMT 1 Generation
Design Capacity (inc self weight) –
Design Capacity (inc self weight) – 44Te per axle (dependant upon tyre
34Te per axle filling
Top coupling – 4 large bolts
Top coupling – 4 large bolts Centre Coupling – Hydraulic pin
Centre Coupling – Hydraulic pin Inter module connections – manual
Inter module connections – manual connection.
connection. Powerpack – water cooled diesel
Powerpack – water cooled diesel 4 file centre spacing – 2.9m
4 file centre spacing – 2.9m Steering – hydraulic ram.
Steering – hydraulic ram?

From this list we can see the evolution of the transporters.

The Kamag and Scheuerle can communicate together using a KIF (Kamag InterFace) but
physically cannot connect.
The Hyspec and Scheuerle gen 1 can only connect with similar modules.
The Scheuerle Gen 2, 3 and 4, however can connect but careful consideration must be
given to loading, as the ram pressure vs capacity curves are different, due to the differing
ram diameters.

Page 70 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Kamag

Nicolas Hyspec

Scheuerle SPMT

Page 71 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Table 3.5. Properties of the various transporters.

TRAILER PROPERTIES

Nicolas Scheuerle Scheuerle Goldhofer Goldhofer Cometto Ex-

ITEM Nicolas Euro Nicolas AWL Nicolas 365 Kamag
Hyspec Gen 2 Gen 3 Ex-Lastra THP / SL Alstom
Operating type Unit Towed/SPT Towed Towed SPMT SPMT SPMT SPMT Towed Towed Towed
N° ID 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Trailer with mm 2,990 3,650 3,650 2,430 2,430 2,430 2,430 2,750 3,000 4,275
Axle centres longitudinal mm 1,550 1,550 1,600 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,500 1,500 1,900
2
Ground area per axle m 2.32 2.83 2.92 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 2.06 2.25 4.06

Axle centres transverse mm 1,820 2,190 2,150 1,430 1,450 1,450 1,450 1,550 1,800 2,550
Axles per line 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Tyres per axle 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 4
Allowable axle load (Maximum payload) t 12.25 12.25 15.00 14.40 15.00 16.00 18.00 10.00 15.35 12.25
Self weight per axle (Uploaded weight) t 1.75 1.75 2.00 2.60 2.25 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.65 1.75

Spine bean moment of inertia cm4 374,666 374,666 374,666 682,000 689,740 830,273 830,273 Unknown 571,600 Unknown
Spine bean section modules cm3 10,704 10,704 10,704 13,800 16,229 17,301 17,301 Unknown 13,545 Unknown
Max. allowable bending moment spine beam tm 350 350 350 467 510 612 612 Unknown 571 Unknown
Max. allowable bending moment bottom coupling tm 350 350 350 467 510 612 612 Unknown 571 Unknown
Max. allowable bending moment top coupling tm 148 148 148 233 510 612 612 Unknown 183 Unknown
Maximum allowable stress kg/cm2 3,976 3,976 3,976 3,976 3671 Unknown Unknown Unknown 7,034 Unknown

Engine length mm 4,000 0 0 4,000 4,000 4,200 4,200

Inflation pressure bar 8.60 8.60 8.60 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Unknown Unknown Unknown
Min. platform height mm 750 750 865 1,200 1,140 1,150 1,150 865 875 750
Max. platform height mm 1,400 1,400 1,515 1,830 1,840 1,850 1,850 1,465 1,475 1,400
Stroke mm 650 650 650 630 700 700 700 600 600 650
HTOFFSET mm 384 384 415 297 350 220 220 200 200
Med. platform height mm 1,075 1,075 1,190 1,515 1,490 1,500 1,500 1,165 1,175 1,075

Axle Pressure bar/t 17.14 17.09 13.50 12.50 12.50

Page 72 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Steering Modes

There are 3 basic steering modes available, from this there are variations.
The BASIC modes are
Conventional steering [FIG. 1]
This is the steering mode where the whole transporter steers as an arc around a single point outside
the transporter.

Transverse steering [FIG. 2]

This is the transporter steering mode where each axle rotates the same amount of degrees from the
transporter centreline.

Page 73 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Carousel (circle) steering [FIG. 3]

This is the steering mode where the centre of rotation is on the centreline (usually within the
transporter (most common is at the transporter group centre.

3.5.1. SPT - Self Propelled Trailers

From the ALE perspective the development of the SPT came after the use of SPMTs.
During the 1990’s there were frequent requirements for longer term hire of SPMT’s which did not
require the full features of the SPMT, such as capacity, steering etc, but did benefit from the lower bed
height of conventional transporters.
Typical of this were site movements of deck panels or jacket legs during production on yards, where
one movement per week were typical. This type of utilisation was not cost effective for high investment
equipment such as SPMTs.
The main delay in developing the SPT was in providing a suitable low height powerpack and drive
unit. Econofreight developed with Nicholas the idea of using an underfloor bus engine as the primary
source of power – combined with conventional 4 row chassis equipped with drive motors to act in
place of the tractor unit.
This allowed a more cost effective long term utilisation of equipment as the majority of the equipment
on site was the lower cost conventional Nicholas European Transporters.
There are several variations on powered transport units – see table.
As newer Conventional equipment as been purchased from Goldhofer, newer SPT unit have also
been purchased.

Page 74 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

3.6. STABILITY OF TRAILERS

Transporter stability falls into a 2x2 group matrix

Each of the lower level items must satisfy both of the upper items to have complete stability.

Page 75 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Considering the following Sketch 1 with 2 file and 4 file transporters level on the ground:

SKETCH 1

The transporters are now on camber and ‘lean’ or heel over to one side as shown in Sketch 2 and
thus throwing the COG over.

SKETCH 2

Note:be aware that the ground has a massive (sometimes unsuspecting) effect on this angle of
lean. Heeling barges, road cambers, corners on slopes can easily deceive and quickly cause
problems

Geometric stability
When the cog reaches/exceeds the axle (ram centres) the payload is now unstable and is almost
certainly off the transporter.

Hydraulic stability
If the payload is heavy, the shift in cog, could overload the hydraulic circuits on the side the load is
shifting to. This could occur with a small shift in angle if the cog is high or the load is heavy.
Both these conditions need to be satisfied for transverse stability.

Page 76 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Longitudinal stability works on the same principle, see below Sketch 3, a transporter on level ground.

SKETCH 3

As the transporter negotiates a gradient, the line of influence of the COG shifts as shown on Sketch 4

SKETCH 4

Page 77 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

3.6.1. Three Point Suspension

To calculate stability one has to first decide which suspension system should be employed
Three point systems can be simply explained in the figure 5.

This shows that no matter what angle the payload is tipped to there is no twist or ‘racking’ load
introduced in the payload.

Page 78 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Figure 6 and 7 shows what the setup looks like on a 6 row (2 and 4 file).

The centres of the 3 hydraulic groups are linked to define the limits of the stability triangle. Note at the
cog location the horizontal distance the cog can shift before reaching the limit of the triangle is less
that shown in the stability explanation above. Also be aware that as the transporter tips longitudinally
(e.g. going uphill) the cog can move into a narrower portion of the triangle thus limiting the transverse
stability by a greater amount. This may dictate which end is the point on a transporter arrangement,
but check that the slope is not too great that it throws the cog out of the base of the triangle in the
other direction.
3 point systems for more than one transporter e.g. 4 files require the linking of the suspension at the
point end to create the hydraulic centre.
For large combinations e.g. loadout it may be practical to place the 3 point triangle transversely. This
gives the advantage that as the module traverses the barge/quay interface over the Linkspan, there
remains the ability to maintain the level of the combination. If the traditional method is used then the
point is either on land or on the barge.

Page 79 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

3.6.2. Four Point Suspension

If the three point system shows instability, then it may initially be resolved by using the four point
system. See figure 9 and 10 below;

This may seem the answer to all the problems of the 3 point –there are no suspension pipes required,
the stability ‘triangle’ (now a rectangle) is greater, what is the down side?
The down side is a two point issue.
1. The payload can now be twisted or ‘racked’ this means that it can be distorted or bent out of its
designed limits.
2. The operator now needs to pay closer attention to levels and pressure during the operation.

On lighter loads the piece can lift of the transporter if the payload is rigid.

Page 80 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

3.6.3. Multi Point Suspension

Multi point suspension evolved from the use of different transporter makes and types under large
loadout e.g., different makes of SPMT and conventional transporters under a single load. These
transporters could not be hydraulically linked due to different systems.
It can also occur where the transporters are so far apart that hydraulic (and electronic) links may not
be practical.
The advantages are
• Use of a mix of differing equipment.
• Large distances between transporters are possible
The disadvantages are
• Control and monitoring of each transporter needs to be considered and evaluated.
• Numbers of skilled operators required is larger than normal.

3.6.4. Trailer stability limits

The current ALE spreadsheet develops stability based upon a 10% limit.
This can be exceeded only with the express permission of an ALE engineering manager.
There are times where the spreadsheet states that the operational limits are greater than +/- 350mm,
as the physical transporter limit is +/-350mm then the piece is stable even if the spreadsheet says not.

Page 81 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

3.6.5. Example stability calculations

2-file 6-row SPMT 3-point system
Typical transportation arrangement:

Weight of the load 100t

Weight of trailer (4 x 6) 24t
Height of CoG above transporter bed 2000mm
Geometric stability
Fir
st
ste
p is
to
divi
de
axl
es
into
hydraulic groups as shown on the drawing below.

These groups form a stability triangle. Once CoG of the load crosses the stability triangle, load
becomes unstable. Boundaries of the triangle are limits for how far load can lean. Geometric stability is
based on the shortest distance from CoG to the edge of the stability triangle.
To find shortest distance the similar triangle rule is applied. Angle between longitudinal centreline and
one edge of the triangle can be found as:
1450 / 2  1450 / 2 
tan θ = => θ = tan −1   = 9 .8
o

4200  4200 
The distance from CoG to the boundary:
r = 2800 sin θ = 2800 sin(9.8o ) = 476mm
Which also could be found using AutoCAD drawing as shown above.
The pivot point for the SPMT is assumed 225mm above the ground level. Therefore the maximum
slope is:
r / H * 100 % = 476 / 3275 * 100 % = 14.5%
Maximum angle:
 476 
tan −1   = 8 .3
o

 3275 

Page 82 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Operational limit based on geometric stability is taken as 50% of maximum slope. i.e. 7.25% in this
case. Maximum allowable crossfall across trailers bed is:
(2430 / 2) * 0.0725 = ±88mm
where 2430mm is trailer bed width.

Hydraulic stability

Hydraulic stability is based on allowable axial capacity. Transverse and longitudinal movements of the
load might cause overload of the particular hydraulic group. At this point tilting of the trailer might not
be possible.
In order to obtain maximum displacement actual load on group 1 and maximum allowable payload on
group 2/3 is calculated.
Load at Group 1:
100t x 1400/4200=33.3t
Max allowable payload at Group 3:
4 x 18t = 72t,
Where 4 is pendulum axle number and 18t is maximum payload capacity.
Take moments about Group 2 to find maximum allowable displacement before overloading hydraulic
group:
100y = 33.3*725 + 72*1450
y = (33.3*725+72*1450)/100
y = 1285mm
y = 1285-725 = 560mm
Slope, angle and maximum crosfall are found same as for geometric stability.
slope = r / H * 100% = 560 / 3275 * 100 % = 17.1%
 560 
angle = tan −1   = 9 .7
o

 3275 
crossfall = (2430 / 2) * 0.171 = ±208 mm
Limiting factor in this case is geometric stability.

Page 83 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Page 84 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Page 85 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

2-file 6-row SPMT 4-point system

The same transport arrangement is checked on a 4-point hydraulic group. Trailer axles are divided into
4No groups as shown below.

Geometric Stability
The distance from CoG to the boundary:
r = 1450 / 2 = 725mm
r / H * 100 % = 725 / 3275 * 100 % = 22.1%
Maximum angle:
 725 
tan −1   = 12 .5
o

 3275 
Operational limit:
( 2430 / 2) * 0.221 * 0.50 = ±134 mm
Hydraulic stability
Max allowable payload at Group 3:
3 x 18t = 54t,
Take moments about Group 1 to find maximum allowable displacement before overloading hydraulic
group:
(100/2)*y = 54*1450
y = 54*1450/(100/2)
y = 1566mm
y = 1566-725 = 841mm
Slope, angle and maximum crosfall are:
slope = r / H * 100% = 841 / 3275 * 100 % = 25.6%
 841 
angle = tan −1   = 14 .4
o

 3275 
crossfall = (2430 / 2) * 0.256 = ±311mm
Limiting factor in this case is geometric stability.

Page 86 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Page 87 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Page 88 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Large Deck Load (over 100axles)

Typical transportation arrangement:

Weight of the load 7610t

Weight of trailer (4 x 320) 1280t
Height of CoG above transporter bed 10840mm
Geometric stability
First step is to divide axles into hydraulic groups as shown on the drawing above and find position of
hydraulic points which form the stability triangle.

To find shortest distance before geometric instability occurs in the worst possible case:
17720  17720 
tan θ = => θ = tan −1   = 42 .1
o

(9810 + 9810 )  9810 * 2 

The distance from CoG to the boundary:
r = 9810 sin θ = 9810 sin(42.1o ) = 6575mm
Which also could be found using AutoCAD drawing as shown above.

Page 89 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

The pivot point for the SPMT is assumed 225mm above the ground level. Therefore the maximum
slope is:
r / H * 100 % = 6575 / 12115 * 100 % = 54.3%
Maximum angle:
 6575 
tan −1   = 28 .5
o

 12115 

Hydraulic stability
Two different directions should be considered for hydraulic stability i.e. transverse and longitudinal
stability.
Transverse

Max allowable payload at Group 1:

20 x 8 x 36t = 5760t,
Take moments about Group 2&3 to find maximum allowable displacement before overloading hydraulic
group:
7610*y = 5760*(9810+9810)
y = 5760*19620/7610
y = 14850mm
y = 14850 - 9810 = 5040mm
Maximum slope transverse:
r / H * 100 % = 5040 / 12115 * 100 % = 41.6%
Maximum angle:
 5040 
tan −1   = 22 .6
o

 12115 

Page 90 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Longitudinal

Load at Group 1:
7610t x 9810/(9810+9810) = 3805t
Max allowable payload at Group 3:
20 x 4 x 36 = 2880t,
Take moments about Group 2 to find maximum allowable displacement before overloading hydraulic
group:
7610y = 3805*18030 + 2880*(18030 + 17720)
y = 22545mm
y = 22545 - 18030 = 4515mm
Maximum slope:
r / H * 100 % = 4515 / 12115 * 100 % = 37.3%
 4515 
tan −1   = 20 .4
o

 12115 
Limiting factor in this case is longitudinal hydraulic stability.
It is not possible at the moment to model such arrangement using ALE-SingleTrailer-6.1 spreadsheet.
The Group 1 should be always assigned as single point group, the group 2 is at the left down corner
and group 3 is at left upside corner. In this particular case actual hydraulic group arrangement could
not be modelled within these spreadsheet requirements.

Page 91 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Transport Arrangement with Bolsters

Typical transportation arrangement:

Weight of the load 262t

Height of CoG above transporter bed 2435mm
Centres of bolster slippers 2400mm
Geometric stability
First step is to divide axles of individual trailers into hydraulic groups as described for single trailer. The
overall stability triangle is based on single point on the front trailer and two points on the rear trailer
where bolster with slippers is attached. The distance between rear two point (base for stability triangle)
is a lesser of geometrical limits for single trailer on its own or distance between slippers.

In this particular example the shortest distance to the edge of stability triangle is found as 914mm,
which gives an overall stability triangle base dimension 914 x 2 = 1827mm. The 250t bolster slippers
are at 2400mm centres. Limiting parameter is rear trailer individual stability triangle.
The overall stability triangle is treated in the same way as for a single trailer.
914  914 
tan θ = => θ = tan −1   = 2 .2
o

11750 * 2  23500 
The distance from CoG to the boundary of overall stability triangle:
r = 11750 sin θ = 11750 sin(2.2 o ) = 457mm
Which also could be found using AutoCAD drawing as shown above.

Page 92 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

The pivot point for the SPMT is assumed 225mm above the ground level. Therefore the maximum
slope is:
r / H * 100 % = 457 / 3710 * 100 % = 12.3%
Maximum angle:
 457 
tan −1   = 7 .0
o

 3710 
Operational limit based on geometric stability is taken as 50% of maximum slope. i.e. 6.15% in this
case. Maximum allowable crossfall across trailers bed is:
(5330 / 2) * 0.0615 = ±164 mm
where 5330mm is rear trailer bed width.

Hydraulic stability
When using 3 point suspension on a bolster operation the hydraulic stability is calculated considering
both trailers. The front trailer offers a single point support and the rear trailer (with the bolster and
slippers) provides stability through the trimming (or side) lines from the hydraulic suspension of that
trailer.

To calculate the hydraulic stability limit, the hydraulic limit of the trimming lines is determinated and is
used to calculate how much the CoG of the load can tip transversally to reach this limit.

In this example:

Assume load tips to the left.

RL = Maximum Trimming Payload on Left side of rear trailer
RF = Front trailer reaction on bolster = 262/2 = 131
RR = Maximum Trimming Payload on Right side of rear trailer.

Maximum Trimming Payload per trimming suspension group:

Scheuerle Gen 3: 36 tonne per axle
Bolster Self Weight: 12t => 1 tonne per axle (1x4x6)
Maximum Turning Payload = (36-1) x 4 = 140 tonnes per trimming suspension group

Page 93 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Taking moments about RL:

262 y = 131 × 1450 + 2900

y = (131 × 1450 + 140 × 2900 ) / 262
y = 2275
y ′ = 2275 − 1450 = 825mm

Slope and angle are:

Slope = y ' / H × 100% = 825 / 3710 × 100 = 22%

 825 
Angle = tan −1   = 12.5°
 3710 

Trimming factor in this case is geometric stability

3.7. STRUCTURAL CAPACITY OF TRAILERS

The principles of transporter loading can be simplified into one statement

‘The transporter should not be loaded in a way that would break its back’
Using that statement we can investigate how we should load a transporter.
The transporter can be considered a beam. Each different type has a different spine beam properties
(see table 3.5).
The transporter loading will take the form of either continuous or point loadings. Point loading is the
more common arrangement and we shall look at this.

The following sketches are taken from the ALE Trailer Stability Program

Page 94 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Sketch S1 shows the typical bending/shear diagram for a 2 point loading.

Note the maximum bending and shear are within limits

SKETCH S1

Page 95 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Sketch S2 shows the typical bending/shear diagram for a 4 point loading.

Note the maximum bending and shear are within limits.

SKETCH S2

Page 96 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Sketch S3 shows the effect of loading at the wrong locations on the transporter.

SKETCH S3

Page 97 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

If loaded in this condition the transporter will snap. The solutions to this are

a. Move the loading points to nearer the transporter centre. [Sketch S3a].
b. Increase the length of the transporter. [Sketch S3b].
c. Switch off the axles in the middle of the transporter to reduce the bending load. [Sketch S3c].

SKETCH S3a

Page 98 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

SKETCH S3b

Page 99 of 499
Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

SKETCH S3c

Page 100 of 499

Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

One aspect of transporter loading that needs to be investigated is the unsupported axle cantilevering
from the end of a transporter in an unsupported manner.

The effect can be explained by the sketch S4 where in can be clearly seen that the bending moment
applied to the unsupported end is caused by the axles at the end of the transporter trying to curl the
transporter around its last support.
It is with this in mind that we limit the number of unsupported axles to 4. Also check the arrangement
to try to avoid a joint under a load point.
This cantilever effect can be mitigated by placing load spreading beneath the reaction point to
effectively move the load point nearer the transporter end.

SKETCH S4

Page 101 of 499

Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

CHASIS CAPACITY CALCULATION WITH/WITHOUT SPEADER

Load acting on trailers should be effectively distributed by means of spreader and/or load spreading
mats. Any unsupported axles cause bending stresses in the spine beam of the trailer. The following
example demonstrates how to calculate chasis bending and effect of load spreading on bending
stresses.
Typical AL38 girder frame arrangement:
Maximum payload 400t
Girder frame 165t
Spreader 15t
Total 580t
Load per axle 20.7t

In the first case 5.5m spreader is shown. Five unsupported axles produce bending of the chasis.
Calculate bending moment at axle No6 (first axle adjacent/under the speader), where bending moment
is highest:

BM = 20.7t x 1.6m x (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5) = 496.8tm (4873.6kNm)

The capacity of the spine beam can be found from the ALE Load Lashing Standard or from ALE-
SingleTrailer spreadsheet where properties of ALE trailers are listed.
The bending moment capacity of the Nicolas 365 trailer is 3436kNm, which is less than required by the
proposed transportation arrangement.

Page 102 of 499

Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Check the trailers bed with the 14.4m long spreader arrangement. In this case only 2 axles are
unsupported.

Find bending moment at axle No3:

BM = 20.7t x 1.6m x (1 + 2) = 99.4tm (974.7kNm)
which is within chassis capacity.
Stiffness of spreader should be taken into account. In the example above spreader is assumed as a
rigid body, in reality spreader will deflect too and bending moment in the spine beam will increase,
especially when load spreading mat is used as a spreader, which moment of inertia is less than
spreader shown in the current example.
In some case hogging bending moment might occur. For example, transporting long load on two
support points placed widely apart close to the end of the trailer. Deflection of the trailers bed should
be verified, to make sure bed will not clash with the load and enough stroke is left in case the load is
loaded/offloaded using trailer’s integral hydraulics.

Page 103 of 499

Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Ground bearing pressures

Heavy loads will exert heavy pressures on the ground, this is a fact, it is one of the laws of physics as
laid down by Issac Newton in his third law

The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and
collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the
second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and
opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F
called the "action" and −F the "reaction". The action and the reaction are simultaneous.

For our purposes we are looking to ensure that the ground we travel over is adequate for supporting
the weight of the load and the self weight of the transport system, the most normal method of defining
this is to use the shadow projected area of the trailer and to divide the total downward load by the area
of the trailer.

Example

Transport of boiler weighing 500t using 20 lines of SPMT and 2 power packs

14000

470
2430

2430

12600

Typical transporter arrangement

Weight of load 500.0 tonnes

Weight of trailer (20 x 4) 80.0 tonnes
Weight of power packs (2 x 7.2) 14.4 tonnes

Total gross load 594.4 tonnes

Plan area of trailer (20 x 1.4 x 2.43) 68.04 sq metres

Ground loading (594.4 / 68.04) 8.74 tonnes per square metre

Total load “down” - the action = 594.4t

Total load “up” - the reaction = 68.04 x 8.74 = 594.4t

Page 104 of 499

Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

There are various views on what constitutes the shadow area and this can be used to our advantage
but it can also be used against us, some people may argue the shadow area is not the full length of
the trailer but only the distance from end wheel to end wheel therefore the above equation could be
modified (assuming the trailer is 2 lines of 10 side by side and ignoring the gap between trailers) as
follows

Total gross load 594.4 tonnes

Plan area of trailer (9 x 1.4 x 2.43 x 2) 61.24 sq metres

Ground loading (594.4 / 61.24) 9.71 tonnes per square metre

If we argue that not only is the trailer effective for its length it is also effective for the gap between the
trailers, this is after all no different to any of the other gaps then the calculation becomes

Total gross load 594.4 tonnes

Plan area of trailer (10 x 1.4 x 5.33) 74.62 sq metres

Ground loading (594.4 / 74.62) 7.97 tonnes per square metre

So for one set up we have three possible answers, we need to take it a step further to make sure that
what we are doing will work. The example shown above is acceptable in any of the formats for
travelling over solid ground but for on a barge deck or a suspended bridge deck then the individual
wheel loads also need to be considered.

All of the trailers currently used by ALE are pneumatic rubber tyres with an inflation pressure
stipulated by the trailer manufacturer in conjunction with the tyre supplier.

The inflation pressure varies from 8.2 bar for conventional hydraulic trailers to 10 bar for SPMT units,
there are trailers now on the market that will have “solid” tyres and the sold tyre will react differently to
a pneumatic tyre. The pneumatic tyre also obeys the Newtons third law, in that the total weight down
(applied to a wheel) is the same as the total load acting up (the reaction).

Tyres themselves have very little mechanical strength, if you get a puncture on your car or bike you
can see straight away because the tyre is “flat”, what keeps the tyre from this is the air pressure inside
the tyre, the greater the air pressure the less effect there will be on how the tyre is squashed or
deflected under load, as we already know the tyre pressure it is quite easy to establish the
approximate tyre area, its the same as the formula above.

Example - continued from above

Transport of boiler weighing 500t using 20 lines of SPMT and 2 power packs

Weight of load 500.0 tonnes

Weight of trailer (20 x 4) 80.0 tonnes
Weight of power packs (2 x 7.2) 14.4 tonnes

Total gross load 594.4 tonnes

Load per trailer line (594.4 / 20) 29.72 tonnes
Load per trailer axle (29.72 / 2) 14.86 tonnes
Load per trailer wheel (14.86 / 2) 7.43 tonnes

Tyre pressure (10 bar) 101.0 tonnes per sq metre

Ground pressure directly under the tyre 101.0 tonnes per sq metre

Page 105 of 499

Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

The variable is how much the tyre deflects under weight

Tyre load 7.43 tonnes

Tyre pressure 101.0 tonnes per sq metre
Contact area (7.43 / 101.0) 0.07356 sq metres

The tyre width is reasonably constant at 340 mm (0.34m)

The contact length then becomes (0.07356 / 0.34) = 0.216 m or 216 mm

This can be seen in practice where the heavier loaded the trailer becomes the more the tyres will
“flatten”, it can even be used as a visual guide to how much load is on a trailer, not only in our work
but on a road trailer with a cover, it is usually easy to see if they are loaded or not loaded by the shape
of the tyres.

Page 106 of 499

Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Example of wheel loading

Total load down

The diagram shows the tyre pressure

is equal all around the tyre, including
the part of the tyre that is “squashed”.

In order to maintain equilibrium the

pressure acting up is the same as the
pressure acting down therefore the
loading directly under any tyre is the
same as the pressure inside the tyre

Total load up

In this example there is no argument over the effective area but for the “shadow” pressure to be
effective the road surface has to be capable of sustaining the loads imposed and transmitting it
without excessive deformation or failure to the sub soil, if there is a failure what we see is rutting of the
ground, we see it all the time when delivery vehicles travel over soft ground, you can see the tyre
tracks because the ground is soft.

A good example of transport over soft material is the use of sand to even out foundations and the like
on site, the sand itself is capable of supporting pressures of 30 to 40 tonnes per sq metre but you
can’t just drive over it, so we put steel plates down and it works, the steel plate is actually spreading
the weight from each wheel into the ground so that our effective shadow area now works.

The table below shows a set of comparisons of trailer loadings for SPMT, all values are approximate
and based on tyre pressures of 10 bar and tyre width of 340 - 350 mm

Payload per Line load Wheel load Tyre contact Wheel squash Average GBP
line length
0.0 4.0 1.00 28 mm 0 mm 1.2 t/m2
5.0 9.0 2.25 63 mm 1 mm 2.6 t/m2
10.0 14.0 3.50 98 mm 3 mm 4.1 t/m2
15.0 19.0 4.75 133 mm 5 mm 5.6 t/m2
20.0 24.0 6.00 168 mm 9 mm 7.1 t/m2
25.0 29.0 7.25 203 mm 13 mm 8.5 t/m2
30.0 34.0 8.50 238 mm 18 mm 10.0 t/m2

For information the original SPMT that we see today was sized to suit the following parameters

• Individual weight not to exceed 24t to keep the overall weight to road limits for transport
• Width not to exceed 2.43m in order to fit road transport and shipping flat racks
• Capacity 30t per line as most barges and construction sites were good for 10t/m2

Page 107 of 499

Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Barge deck plating

The general formulae used above is generally acceptable to most customers and engineers but
special consideration needs to be given to barge decks and bridge decks as these structures may not
be capable of simply spreading the load sub surface, a structural analysis will be needed to make sure
the roads deck or barge deck is not overloaded and then the bridge supports are not overloaded, it is
safe to say that barges or bridges designed for 10t or more per sq metre will generally be OK without
any strengthening but this needs to be verified by the owner or his engineer.

We can supply the loadings applied for others to verify the structures.

Barge decks can be estimated using Lloyds rules for weather decks which has a tabular format
calculation for use of heavy duty fork lift trucks or the like with closely pitched wheels, we normally
qualify for that description and the deck plating will normally already have been designed accordingly.

Figure: Deck plating stress factor, A

Page 108 of 499

Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Required deck plating thickness

The deck plating thickness t, is to be not less than:

t = 4.6 + 1.5 mm
where
A = stress factor obtained from figure below for the tyre print and plate dimension
defined in the figure.
Pw = load, in tonnes, on the tyre print. For close-spaced wheels the shaded area shown in
figure below may be taken as the combined wheel print.

Example calculation for barge deck (see also figure 5.2.2)

Barge deck framing (le) = 2286mm, Barge scantling spacing (s) = 762

Plate panel ratio = 2286 / 610 = 3.7

See table above for tyre print ratio

Wheel load = 30t + 4t self weight

Tyre width (v) = 350mm, tyre length (u) = 285mm

Tyre print ratio (u/v) = 285 / 350 = 0.81

Tyre width to scantling spacing (v/s) = 350 / 610 = 0.57

From figure 5.2.2 : A ~ 0..37 (Based on PR 3.0, v/s 0.57)

Minimum plate thickness = 4.6 + 1.5 mm = 4.6 + 1.5 mm = 17.8mm

Page 109 of 499

Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Drive calculations

In order to make a load move we need to overcome the following

• Rolling resistance within the bearings of the wheels, the bearings are almost friction free
and this is normally ignored
• Rolling resistance of the surface we are travelling over, steel plate is much smoother than
gravel or even rough concrete
• Any slope that we have to travel up
• Wind which is blowing on the opposite direction to the one we need to travel in (head wind)

Calculating the tractive effort required should be a staged calculation, for most situations we only
need to check if there is enough capacity in the drive motors to overcome the road rolling
resistance and the slope of a site or barge.

As the slope gets steeper or if the surface is poor then additional calculations should be done to
determine that there is adequate traction and that the wheels will not spin under load.

In rare circumstances we also need to verify that the brakes are adequate to hold the load on an
incline if the load is stopped for any reason.

Calculation basis - primary calculations

• Calculate the total weight of the load, this includes the self weight of the trailer and power
pack
• Establish the rolling resistance of the surface, this will always be an estimate but the
following table gives a guide and can be safely used
• Establish the slope that needs to be negotiated, convert this to a percentage
• Make allowance for any head wind (not likely to be significant)
• Calculate available drive and make sure this is greater than the required drive with a margin
for safety

Calculation basis - secondary calculations

• Look at the surface condition and estimate the traction or grip at each drive point
• Calculate the drive capacity based on reduced grip if appropriate
• Look at the surface condition and estimate the traction or grip at each brake location
• Calculate the available brake capacity and compare to the required capacity

Page 110 of 499

Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Example

A load of 400t will be carried by 20 lines of SPMT with 2 power packs and a pair of transport
beams weighing 20t total, the frontal area is 100m2 and the windspeed is 20m/sec, the road
surface is asphalt with a 1 in 25 (4%) incline, conditions are likely to be wet during winter periods,
assume ice or snow will be cleared in advance. CoG of load is 5.0m above the trailer bed.

PRIMARY DRIVE CALCULATION

Weight of load = 400.0 tonnes

Weight of SPMT (approx) = 20 x 4 = 80.0 tonnes
Weight of PPU (approx) = 7.2 x 2 = 14.4 tonnes
Weight of transport beams = 20.0 tonnes

Total gross load = 514.4 tonnes

Rolling resistance from table (poor condition) 2.25%

Tractive effort required = 0.0225 x 514.4 = 11.57 tonnes (on level ground)

Slope of ground 4.0%

Tractive effort required for slope = 0.04 x 514.4 = 20.58 tonnes

Wind loading(kg) = 0.0625 x Area (m2) x velocity (m/sec) x velocity (m/sec)

Wind loading = 0.0625 x 100 x 20 x 20/1000 = 2.50 tonnes

Total loading to overcome = 11.57 + 20.58 + 2.50= 34.65 tonnes

Page 111 of 499

Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

The standard ALE SPMT (gen 3) have a drive capacity of 60kN (6.1t) per drive axle
Each 4 line is normally fitted with 2 of the drive axles and each 6 line with 4 drive axles

Trailer combination details

Type Scheuerle Gen 3
4 line units (2 units each with 12.2t drive) 24.4 tonnes
6 line units (2 units each with 24.4t drive) 48.8 tonnes

Total drive available 73.2 tonnes

Ratio of required to available = 34.65 / 73.2 = 47.3%

(This would normally be limited to 75% as a contingency, without considering traction

requirements)

SECONDARY DRIVE CALCULATIONS

TRACTION

As the load is driving up a slope we will assume that the trailer is not levelled and the effect of the
vertical CG will result in more load at the rear of the trailer and less at the front.

Assuming the suspension is set up for 3 point operation with the point of the triangle at the front
of the trailer using 4 lines of each trailer and the stability section at the rear of the trailer using 6
lines of each trailer.

Line loading on level ground with no wind

Total load on point = 400 x 2.8 / 7.0 = 160t, load per line = 160 / 8 = 20.0t
Load on side 1 = 400 x 4.2 / 7.0 / 2 = 120t, load per line = 120 / 6 = 20.0t
Load on side 2 = 400 x 4.2 / 7.0 / 2 = 120t, load per line = 120 / 6 = 20.0t

Geometry change on slope

347

2416 4543
6959

Page 112 of 499

Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Line loading on sloping ground with no wind, the CoG “shifts” towards the rear of the trailer by
347mm and the support base reduces from 7000mm to 6959mm

Total load on point = 400 x 2.416 / 6.959 = 138.9t, load per line = 138.9 / 8 = 17.36t
Load on side 1 = 400 x 4.543 / 6.959 /2 = 130.6t, .load per line = 130.6 / 6 = 21.76t
Load on side 2 = 400 x 4.543 / 6.959 /2 = 130.6t, .load per line = 130.6 / 6 = 21.76t

Line loading on sloping ground with full head wind of 20m/sec, as above the CoG “shifts” towards
the rear of the trailer by 347mm and the support base reduces from 7000mm to 6959mm, the
wind action is assumed to be active 5 metres above the trailer bed and resisted at the trailer bed
level and is then resolved into the trailer. (See above for wind force calculation)

Effect of wind load on point or sides of trailer = +/- 2.50 x 5 / 6.959 = +/- 1.80t

Load effect on point of trailer = - 1.80 / 8 = 0.23t

Load effect on sides of trailer = 1.80 / 12 = 0.15t

Load on point with slope and head wind = 17.36 - 0.23 = 17.13t
Load on sides of trailer with slope and head wind = 21.76 + 0.15 = 21.91t

The trailer build is assumed to be PPU plus 4 plus 6 with PPU at rear of trailer combination

Each case needs to be considered separately but for typical ALE transporters this would put 4
drive legs in each side and the point, other modified units may have more drive

Dry condition drive available based on drive motor capacity

Point - 4 legs x 6.1t = 24.4t

Side 1 - 4 legs x 6.1t = 24.4t
Side 2 - 4 legs x 6.1t = 24.4t

Total = 24.4 + 24.4 + 24.4 = 73.2t

Consider effect of traction on leg load for dry, wet or icy conditions

Dry condition traction per leg limited to ~ 0.8 x leg load

Point - 0.8 x 17.13 = 13.7 > 6.1t therefore should develop full drive force without spinning
Side 1 - 0.8 x 21.91 = 17.5 > 6.1t therefore should develop full drive force without spinning
Side 2 - 0.8 x 21.91 = 17.5 > 6.1t therefore should develop full drive force without spinning

Wet condition traction per leg limited to ~ 0.5 x leg load

Point - 0.5 x 17.13 = 8.6 > 6.1t therefore should develop full drive force without spinning
Side 1 - 0.5 x 21.91 = 10.9 > 6.1t therefore should develop full drive force without spinning
Side 2 - 0.5 x 21.91 = 10.9 > 6.1t therefore should develop full drive force without spinning

If conditions are very icy then the traction will reduce even further ~ 0.1 x leg load

Point - 0.1 x 17.13 = 1.7 < 6.1t therefore will not develop full drive force without spinning
Side 1 - 0.1 x 21.91 = 2.2 < 6.1t therefore will not develop full drive force without spinning
Side 2 - 0.1 x 21.91 = 2.2 < 6.1t therefore will not develop full drive force without spinning

Page 113 of 499

Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

BRAKES

As with the consideration of drive effort and the effects of traction it may be wise to check that
there are enough brakes on the trailers to hold the load in place in case of an unforeseen hold up
in operations.

The standard ALE SPMT (gen 3) have a brake capacity of 45kN (4.5t) per brake axle
Each 4 line is normally fitted with 4 of the brake axles and each 6 line with 6 brake axles, this
may vary with the actual model of trailer used.

Trailer combination details

Type Scheuerle Gen 3
4 line units (2 units each with 18.0t brakes) 36.0 tonnes
6 line units (2 units each with 27.0t brakes) 54.0 tonnes

Total braking available 90.0 tonnes

When considering the brakes and holding effect it is normal to consider the rolling resistance to
be zero, as the load wants to roll down the hill

For the above example

Weight of load = 400.0 tonnes

Weight of SPMT (approx) = 20 x 4 = 80.0 tonnes
Weight of PPU (approx) = 7.2 x 2 = 14.4 tonnes
Weight of transport beams = 20.0 tonnes

Total gross load = 514.4 tonnes

Rolling resistance for downhill condition only 0.00% (for drive or uphill see table below)

Braking effort required = 0.00 x 514.4 = 0.0 tonnes (on level ground)

Slope of ground 4.0%

Braking effort required for slope = 0.04 x 514.4 = 20.58 tonnes

Wind loading(kg) = 0.0625 x Area (m2) x velocity (m/sec) x velocity (m/sec)

Wind loading = 0.0625 x 100 x 20 x 20/1000 = 2.50 tonnes

Total loading to overcome = 0.00 + 20.58 + 2.50 = 23.08 tonnes

Ratio of brakes to required = 23.08 / 90.0 25.6%

(This would be normally limited to 67%, drive axles would be in addition to this acting as hydraulic
brakes)

It is very rare that brakes will be an issue unless there is a problem with traction for drive when
one of the options may be to de energise several lines to get more pressure on the driving axles,
in this case try to avoid de energising brake axles or check there is still adequate reserve
capacity in the system.

Page 114 of 499

Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Consider effect of traction on leg load for the braked axles for dry, wet or icy conditions

Dry condition traction per leg limited to ~ 0.8 x leg load

Point - 0.8 x 17.13 = 13.7 > 4.5t therefore should develop full drive force without sliding
Side 1 - 0.8 x 21.91 = 17.5 > 4.5t therefore should develop full drive force without sliding
Side 2 - 0.8 x 21.91 = 17.5 > 6.1t therefore should develop full drive force without sliding

Wet condition traction per leg limited to ~ 0.5 x leg load

Point - 0.5 x 17.13 = 8.6 > 4.5t therefore should develop full drive force without sliding
Side 1 - 0.5 x 21.91 = 10.9 > 4.5t therefore should develop full drive force without sliding
Side 2 - 0.5 x 21.91 = 10.9 > 4.5t therefore should develop full drive force without sliding

If conditions are very icy then the traction will reduce even further ~ 0.1 x leg load

Point - 0.1 x 17.13 = 1.7 < 4.5t therefore will not develop brake force without sliding
Side 1 - 0.1 x 21.91 = 2.2 < 4.5t therefore will not develop brake force without sliding
Side 2 - 0.1 x 21.91 = 2.2 < 4.5t therefore will not develop brake force without sliding

SPMT and SPT

The above examples are based on SPMT Scheuerle Generation 3 transporters and are valid for
other types of SPMT or SPT the variables are the type of drive and braking on each of the
systems

When doing the calculations you need to know

What type of trailers will be used

SPMT Scheuerle, Hyspec and Kamag are similar but have different types and values of drive and
brakes, they all follow the general principle of drive and brakes evenly spread along the length of
the trailer system, get the data sheets from operations to check what brakes and drives are fitted.

SPT are special trailers with all the drive, normally, at one end only they usually operate with
lighter payloads so traction may be more critical as above get the data sheets from operations to
check what brakes and drives are fitted.

Other considerations

• If there is a long trailer and axles need to pinned up to avoid overstressing the chassis in
bending, will this affect the number of drive motors or brakes in the system
• If there is a traction issue with a lightly loaded trailer pinning up non drive axles is common,
make sure there are enough brake axles left in the system to avoid a runaway situation.

Page 115 of 499

Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Rolling resistance and traction coefficients

The following tables are a guide only, local conditions can vary significantly, oil spillages will
affect traction coefficients

Road Surface Condition Rolling resistance

Concrete Excellent 1.00
Good 1.50
Poor 2.00
Asphalt Good 1.25
Fair 1.75
Poor 2.25
Macadam Good 1.50
Fair 2.25
Poor 3.75
Cobbles Ordinary 5.50
Poor 8.50
Snow 50mm 2.50
100mm 3.75
Dirt Smooth 2.50

Road Surface Condition Traction coefficient

Concrete Dry 0.85
Wet 0.55
Asphalt Dry 0.80
Wet 0.50
Macadam Dry 0.80
Wet 0.50
Cobbles Dry 0.60
Wet 0.30
Snow / Ice 0.10
Dirt Smooth 0.50

Further data on the drive and braking capacity of the various trailer types can be found in the ALE
lashing standards document on ALE website.

Reference - ES02 - Load lashing standard, Appendix C

Page 116 of 499

Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

3.8. LASHING OF LOADS

When transporting loads there are many factors that influence the stability and thus the security
of the load during transport.

The main factors to consider are:

Deceleration force
Acceleration force
Longitudinal slope/gradient of the road
Transverse slope/level of the trailer bed
Transverse acceleration while driving through a curve (cornering) or centrifugal force
Wind loading

Height of the C of G: loads with a high C of G in relation to the dimensions of the base may
require lashing to prevent tipping.

If the load is not secured to the trailer with lashing the only thing preventing the load from moving
is the friction between the load and the trailer bed. This frictional force can be increased by
ensuring that a thin layer of material (shims) with a higher friction coefficient is placed between
the loading points and the trailer bed, i.e. sheets or strips of plywood or thin rubber matting. Also
make sure the contact areas between the load and trailer are clean and free from oil and grease.
Never place steel on steel as it slips too easily due to its low friction factor. The friction
coefficients for different types of shims are taken from the ALE Load Lashing Standard and
repeated below:

Friction Material (Shims) Trailer Bed Material Friction Coefficient (DRY)

Steel Steel 0.1
Wood Steel 0.2
Neoprene Steel 0.3
Special High Friction Pads Steel 0.4

Note: Friction factors are based on dry conditions.

Page 117 of 499

Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Lashing Calculations

ALE currently use the ALE Load Lashing Standard which sets out the company rules for the
lashing of heavy loads to platform trailers but also includes software to evaluate the amount of
lashing required to secure a load for transport. The Standard is applicable for operations with
Self Propelled Modular Transporters (SPMT) and conventional modular trailers and is based on
ALE’s fleet of trailers.

It must be noted that before starting a lashing calculation, the proposed transportation
arrangement must be checked for geometric and hydraulic stability. If geometric and/or hydraulic
stability is achieved by combining the C of G of the load and trailer, the lashing has to have
sufficient capacity to handle the weight of the trailer.

Once the lashing has been evaluated, the practicalities of installing it have to be considered:

Are there enough lashing points on the load and the trailer?
Are the lashing points strong enough to take the number of lashing required?
Can the angles of the lashing be achieved?

Page 118 of 499

Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

3.9. TRANSPORT BEAMS

Transport beams are mainly used to allow the cargo to be offloaded or loaded using jacks or the
integral hydraulic suspension of a trailer system. They are placed to coincide with the strong points of
the cargo and the trailer and designed to carry vertical and horizontal loadings during transport,
loading and storage.

The beams may be part of the original build or inserted just before transport, there are several options
for carrying out this operation.

Using cranes the load can be lifted onto beams that have been prepositioned on top of the trailer, the
cranes can be the ones already in the workshop, a crane that is hired in especially for that reason or a
ships crane that offloads the cargo after delivering it into port.

Jack up the cargo to create a clear gap underneath then slide or skid the beams underneath, continue
jacking until the trailer can be placed under the transport beam and load.

When specifying transport beams it is important to consider the effect of dynamic loading when they
are in use, it’s no good having a deep section beam that may topple over or suffer from web
deformation when the brakes are applied or the load has to go up a hill or down a slope.

The best beams are usually those that are made from more than one rolled steel section and welded
toe to toe so that the whole entity becomes shallower and resistant to torsional loadings, closure
plates welded at the end of the beams will provide good stiffness and a seal that prevents water
ingress to extend the life of the beam with repainting only needed on the outer surfaces.

Cargo

Transport beam

Transporter or trailer

Typical transport beam arrangement

Page 119 of 499

Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Design process for transport beams

Establish vertical static loads for all conditions including

Loads from the cargo when the beam is sitting on the trailer
Loads from the cargo when the beam is supported outside the trailer by jacks or supports stools
Any local bearing areas at the support points

Establish horizontal loads from effect of braking or slopes (this will be partly resisted by the lashing but
if the lashing is not fully effective there needs to be an allowance for the effect on the transport beam)

Consider how the load will be transferred from the top of the beam to the bottom of the beam

Will the effects of the dynamic horizontal load increase the static vertical loading (induced loading
effect)

Consider the dynamic effect of transport on the vertical loads, a fast moving heavy load will be subject
to vertical accelerations when travelling over uneven ground whilst a slow moving SPMT will see
almost zero loading

If the beam is to be used on a barge are there any accelerations or impacts from the sea or river
voyage

Consider what happens when the barge or ship is berthed, will this cause the transport beam to have
any additional loading as the ship “bumps” against the quayside

Once all the loading parameters have been developed the beam can be designed in accordance with
the local appropriate design code checking for

• Vertical bending and lateral torsional effects

• Horizontal bending and torsional effects
• Shear in both direction
• Bearing at support point and application of load points
• Buckling at support point and application of load points
• Deflection under worst condition of loading

3.10. DRAWING LAYOUT FOR TRANSPORT

Transportation arrangement drawing is prepared using standard ALE template with prescribed
layers as described in Section 2.8 of engineering guidelines. Drawing shows plan view, elevation
and end elevation laid out in 3rd angle projection where possible. Transport arrangement drawing
includes schematic hydraulic group diagram and lashing arrangement. Additional details might be
included on the drawing e.g. girder beam daylight, cross-beam arrangement for the girder frame
drawing. Examples of transportation arrangements of typical 3-file, 4-file single trailer, girder
frame and using bolsters are shown on following pages.
The information about trailer type, number of axles/files, lines/rows and load to be transported is
summarised in ALE trailer specification table, which can be found on the Reference tab of the
drawing template.

Page 120 of 499

Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Page 121 of 499

Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Page 122 of 499

Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Page 123 of 499

Client: ALE Engineering Departments Doc Number: ALE-EG-001
Project: Engineering Guidelines Revision Status: 0

Page 124 of 499