max inside brds.

  • Thread starter southernpoofter
  • Start date
steveprower said:
Hi Alan

yes heard about young Peter, most strange thing is he's back at work or so the last bit of gossip goes. I would save the money on that xmas card if i was you, so things do not change!
Click to expand...

I knew he was back at work he apparently thought the mill would not be enough to see him out and needed another year at work to top it up ???
I wish him well (I hope he reads that)
 
He wants to be spending more time with the grand kids and living in spain if he's got any sense at all, a mill goes a long way out there, and he could always do a bit for Alan Poland if he got seriously short!!
 
thanks for all answers guys but as i have had nothing definate back, i,ve contacted our desighner and his reply is as follows,

the problem of overload actually occurs to the inside ledger- not the max unsurported length of the 675mm - as the 3 inside brds act as a canterlever and the outside ledger being fixed and not allowing uplift ,puts the inside ledger under increased loading, calculations can be achieved to lower the tolerances by inserting additional transoms, in a case to put them nearer to the node point of a standard,which in turn reduces the pressure- however the max gross weight allowed should not be greater than .75KN
( man and muck brd) reguardless of that required to the bays of the main working lift-working, in this case a class3 2.0KN -bay lengths not to exceed 1.8m then the 3 inside brds would be the maxiumum without the need for a bridle and spurs or an additional line of standards, always include this into the method statement and at the site meetings and whilst working on site make sure that the brickies/hodies are aware and do not load out on the inside brds-
 
Last edited:
Well if they don't it will be a first.
 
never seen a prob with 3 inside brds - where the circumstances need em,lightweight access only no probs- but there again pre TG20 &SG4 there were a lot of things concidered run of the mill that people seem to shake their heads at now
 
hi guys its no more than 2 inside boards without additional support
also daz maratty its no more than 1/3rd the distance of the bay size
hope this helps
 
hotspanner said:
never seen a prob with 3 inside brds - where the circumstances need em,lightweight access only no probs- but there again pre TG20 &SG4 there were a lot of things concidered run of the mill that people seem to shake their heads at now
Click to expand...

It's just the way of the world hotspanner.

---------- Post added at 06:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:53 PM ----------
neil heap said:
hi guys its no more than 2 inside boards without additional support
also daz maratty its no more than 1/3rd the distance of the bay size
hope this helps
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum neil heap.
 
between Alan & Daz the're on the same lines as the desighner,and seeing as i've used him for nearly 15 years and never let me down i'll go with him

once again many thx for all your input guys SP
 
scaffolding regs are changing all the time its hard to keep up but it all comes down to 1 thing h&s you cant stop people mis using the scaff
 
In relation to Design and Calculation Critical Specifications...

Is the selection of Load Bearing component parts a critical consideration when erecting / fixing the Transom to the out side ledger where an inside 2 and or 3 Board run is required ???.
 
You will know the answer to that better than most Gary but as far as I know the 2 board run is fine and I am happy to build them to that specification. The 3 board run is something we have managed to avoid for one reason or another unless we use system and then it's obviously just the brackets. That could be the real answer to keep the designers at bay, system.
 
Alistair---seems no argument with System, as per Manufacturers Recommendations and Installation Manual...

Just thought Id through in a Load Bearing Question to expand the Thread :cool:...
 
It's going that way AOM

Welcome to the forum Neil Heap
 
I knew that Gary, a good point well made but by the time you fit your aberdeens and extra transoms with set and spliced your joints and paid your designer the job is going to cost a fortune. I hope they aren't pricing against someone with 3 board brackets.

---------- Post added at 08:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:16 PM ----------
SWIFTY said:
It's going that way AOM

I think it would be the beginning of the end if it was.:(

I know I bang on about this all the time but I have been asked to provide the material for one of these 2 day cup lock courses. I feel like a slave making a rod for my own back.

---------- Post added at 08:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:19 PM ----------

Should I tell them before or after they pay the bill that it's only Gen Lock I have got.:idea:
Click to expand...
 
Alistair

That was the point that I made in a previous post the Design Engineers fee could well out do the price and the profit margin of the job ???. :nuts:

Selection of the Type of component parts would eliminate extra tube like Aberdeen transoms, B&P or Millz's...however, System seems to be the most profit making option...
 
What else would eliminate it, dog bones? What do the rules say about extendas? Maybe that would be worth looking at SP.
 
alister- t&f for me all the way,-the dwg and calcs would be done as a generic so cost around £350
the original question was posted for a friend who i gave the client to when he was short on work,and i have since not to fussed about doing anymore work for, i'm not sure whether the saftey officer was just being a little more astute than normal , as it was a procedure we do quite often,and have never been pulled up on, the houses are at the top end of the market 5-7mil each so the stacks are a fair size and its just been an easier setout on this elevation as the soffit/facia overhang is always around the 700mm mark. the inside brds have never been loaded out on, so hence the question to the forum.
Garry- reguarding loadbearing fittings to the transom , that was not disscused so i couldn't comment but with a MLW of .75kn on the inside boards i would assume not
 
southernpoofter said:
alister- t&f for me all the way,-the dwg and calcs would be done as a generic so cost around £350
the original question was posted for a friend who i gave the client to when he was short on work,and i have since not to fussed about doing anymore work for, i'm not sure whether the saftey officer was just being a little more astute than normal , as it was a procedure we do quite often,and have never been pulled up on, the houses are at the top end of the market 5-7mil each so the stacks are a fair size and its just been an easier setout on this elevation as the soffit/facia overhang is always around the 700mm mark. the inside brds have never been loaded out on, so hence the question to the forum.
Garry- reguarding loadbearing fittings to the transom , that was not disscused so i couldn't comment but with a MLW of .75kn on the inside boards i would assume not
Click to expand...

All fair enough SP and to be fair we are just chewing the fat. I would say whilst I preffer t&f and don't ever go out for the system jobs any more the main advantage you will have over me is the availability of a designer on your door step. I just don't have that luxury and to be honest they are pretty thin on the ground Scotland wide so sometimes have to use system just to simplify the matter.
 
Dont fancy erecting with Dogs Bones and hocky sticks...Dogs bones are good for goal post hangers though...

Dogs Bones and Tranies on top of ledgers nae...

Probably nearest thing to compete with a System Scaffold would be a B&P me thinks, 2 board overhang with the D/H + Brace, ledger to ledger with D/H would mitigate against splicing Standards...widni beat System for time though I would suspect...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom