Is there a purpose to 3 (yes 3) check/supplementary fittings?

Flinty

Flinty

Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
0
Location
Oxfordshire
Been meaning to bring this up a while.

A while ago we were told to stop doing our traditional loading bays (bloody brutish loading bays with 10 standards, plans, aberdeens, kicker, 3 rakers, 3 sways etc!) and do them to a new design supplied by the building contractor. This new design showed 8 standards on a 13' section, planned and braced as you'd expect, an obscene 20 transoms but then it showed not 1, not 2...

BUT 3 "supplementary check fittings".

I'm sorry I don't have the drawing here, I'll try get my grubby mitts on it so you can see it, and believe I'm not having you on here. On the centre 2 sets of standards it requires 3 checks, and on every next lift it needs another 3 at the bottom of the punched up standards! Honestly on the top 'half' lift it's pretty much top to bottom of the standard check fittings.

Can anyone explain why, oh God why, a 13' loading bay to take a pallet of bricks and a bucket of muck needs such excessive doubles on its standards?

From my limited understanding there's no point "checking" a check fitting, since it's already doing that job!? And if it's supplementary to the load bearing isn't by the 3rd double it pretty much doing nothing!?!?
 
:amazed: Now then Flinty,as scaffs know f'all, just follow the design lad.:smile1:
 
frederik said:
:amazed: Now then Flinty,as scaffs know f'all, just follow the design lad.:smile1:
Click to expand...

Feck it. I'm calling the design into question. :noworry:

---------- Post added at 08:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:24 PM ----------
jiggaman said:
but your right,your actually checking a check thats checking the original checker,hse eh?
Click to expand...

Yep, which is why it can't be a check. And not HSE at all, just an unusual designer....
 
isnt it a supplementary fitting on loading bays checks are there in case of a fail like on a hangers butt and should have a gap between shouldnt they and suplrementary fitting should touch by any chance the 13ft board actually lies between the standards and 3 trannys to the board end then i thing its 2 and then another 3 b4 next punched up standard if so i think cause its of the hse webste story homes use that 1. althow that lad have just started putting 3 standards in the back and 4 in the front ahahah
 
you might not have to call the drawing into question when some **** finds out theres no doubles left on site,or when the penpushers find out you wasted X amount of time on putting the doubles on
 
It does seem like double standards ( pun intended ) Flinty as we are erecting a pavement gantry that has ladder beams as transoms and 10 standards on the out side and 5 on the inside and is 8 foot wide and that gantry will be handed over at 5kn/m2 with a 60 foot hoist on top as well , it seems they have gone mad on sites with over engineering the loading bays for brickys where always handed over at 2 tonne max like you say a pack of bricks and a bin of muck is all they hold
 
philliosmaximus said:
It does seem like double standards ( pun intended ) Flinty as we are erecting a pavement gantry that has ladder beams as transoms and 10 standards on the out side and 5 on the inside and is 8 foot wide and that gantry will be handed over at 5kn/m2 with a 60 foot hoist on top as well , it seems they have gone mad on sites with over engineering the loading bays for brickys where always handed over at 2 tonne max like you say a pack of bricks and a bin of muck is all they hold
Click to expand...

We have to put signs on them after we're done (incase anyone forgets how much they can take, and actually knows how many kgs the stuff they're lifting weighs) which limits the load to 1900kgs.

So not such an epic loading bay.
 
I thought the general consensus was that each supplementary fitting would count as half the value but Alan Read assures me they are quite comfortable calculating each one at 100%, so they are doing a job.

---------- Post added at 09:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 PM ----------

That been said I could probably carry more myself.:cool:
 
i did an all sure it was axds or sumet (designer i think) that said it but alan says not who to believe fek it i just ownt put any on if in dout dont do it lol :laugh:
 
Can't remember the thread but it was only a couple of days ago, check his last few posts.

---------- Post added at 10:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 PM ----------
UNworkshy-apprentice. said:
suppose we could just use clips instead? :D
Click to expand...

Don't you mean as usual.:D
 
To be honest I can't remember the last time I saw a design that made sense.we had one done the other day for a temporary roof and they had put so many double braces through the working lift that you couldn't climb through them never mind work on the f uckin thing.when I pointed this out before we submitted the design I was told they needed to be there. I honestly don't know how you lads put up with the crap on poxy housing sites. With stupid designs like that for loading bays it must be worth looking at buying or hiring system loading bays?
 
Supplementary couplers - have to be honest and say I'm not sure where I got it from but my opinion is the maximum you are allowed is 2.

And off we go - another thread where you guys are slagging off designs and designers. You should try doing it.....scaffold design is an absolute piece of p*** you know!
 
AxSD said:
Supplementary couplers - have to be honest and say I'm not sure where I got it from but my opinion is the maximum you are allowed is 2.

And off we go - another thread where you guys are slagging off designs and designers. You should try doing it.....scaffold design is an absolute piece of p*** you know!
Click to expand...

Not attacking designers in general, but this design seems to defy all sense. I look at it and think "this wasn't done by a proper designer, either the contractor put it together themselves at their head office or someones 8 year old girl drew something at school and it suddenly became this loading bay."

Chris, Alan, anyone? Have you ever submitted a design for a 13' loading bay which required 3 'supplementary check' fittings?
 
Flinty iam sure if you used 5 ladder beams as transoms you could do away with a hell of a lot of tube , some of these designs seem to have gone mental .
 
philliosmaximus said:
Flinty iam sure if you used 5 ladder beams as transoms you could do away with a hell of a lot of tube , some of these designs seem to have gone mental .
Click to expand...

We've got a "don't joke" policy on site now, as anything we joke about as being over the top seems to come in the next week. If someone joked "we should have ladder beams in these loading bays" no doubt next week it would become a requirement on top of everything else :push:
 
Flinty said:
Not attacking designers in general, but this design seems to defy all sense. I look at it and think "this wasn't done by a proper designer, either the contractor put it together themselves at their head office or someones 8 year old girl drew something at school and it suddenly became this loading bay."

Chris, Alan, anyone? Have you ever submitted a design for a 13' loading bay which required 3 'supplementary check' fittings?
Click to expand...

Nope, never have. Like I said we limit the max number to 2.

I wasn't moaning about the thread Flinty more moanalots comments (as well as general comments made regarding designers on other threads)...I agree loading bays have become somewhat ridiculous but our hands are tied - we have a load to design to and that's it....if that leads to 100 transoms or 200 checks or 20 standards then that's what you need. Having said that there are a number of different approaches to achieve the same thing....and 3 checks isn't a solution we would choose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom