TG20:08 Safe Height Tables No Longer Valid

scaffoldingsafetyservices said:
Ian we have known alot longer than September that the wind loads in TG20:08 were no longer any good more like 6-8 months. It does baffle me as to why it has taken so long for a proper statement to be issued.
Click to expand...

6-8 months? More like 6 years!!!

TG20:08 was released with wind loading assessed using BS6399, the Eurocode 1991-1-4 which replaced it had already been out for 3 years!! When it came into force in Jan 2011 it had already been out and available to use for 5 1/2 years.. how can they not be prepared? How much more notice do you need?

To then wait 10 1/2 months to 'officially' state Vol 2 tabs were invalid is... well.. slow. Everyone knew they were invalid from Jan '11.. everyone knew they would become invalid when they were released in 2008!

If you ran a business like that.. how would you get on? .... Exactly.
 
Sorry simian it was just my morning banter. LOL.
 
frederik said:
How will this effect calcs on ties?
Click to expand...

It won't mate. If you are doing calculations for ties anyway then you would be using the new Eurocode so nothing would change.

It is only going to effect you if you were using the tables in volume 2 as a simplified & quick method of calculating the safe height of independents.

If you are putting up a tied independent to TG20:08 vol 1 just keep doing the same thing in terms of tie testing eg. A standard tie: 6.10kN x 1.5 FOS = 9.15kN tensile test load. If you are putting up a scaffold to a design, its up to the designer to specify your tie load and test load so you can just follow that.
 
Alrite BMB,just thinking out aloud here! With talk of wind speeds and ties,also debates on staggered ledgers.If an independent tied scaffold on a large project was designed into managable bays,Say 6metre runs,with handrails and ledgers not connected,would this not help if one section was destabilsed, through high winds,ground shift lorry hitting it etc. A bit like an expansion joint in building. Wouldnt take the whole structure down in event of a misshap.
Tie patterns would have to alternate of course. Lifts and handrails could be connected withrubber or plastic sleeves.
Feasable or pie in the sky? :wondering:lol.Also a bit bored at the mo.
 
I can see your thinking behind it but I don't think it would ever catch on. Mainly because if the risk of erecting a scaffold in a given spot was so high that you had to include measures to ensure only partial failure.. then the risk is too high in the first place and other control measures / actions (traffic barriers, road closure, MEWP at night etc) should be considered before that.

There are also structural issues.. each individual section would have to be treated as such, which would definitely mean more ties as there would be no continuity through the scaffold.

Its not a crazy idea though, for example, when you use kentledge on a scaffold.. if that kentledge material can flow e.g. water, sand, pebbles then you must compartmentise the kentledge into sections. The sections must be arranged so that if failure/puncture occurred in one, it would not result in a loss of more than 20% of the total quantity of kentledge... and hence the scaffold would not become unstable because of it.

Thats in TG20:08 page 80 clause 24.9.2.

B.
 
XxIANxX said:
That post is from september 2010 steve so thats 13 months ago :toung:
Click to expand...

Is it really that long Ian.. Doesnt time fly by so quickly.. That is about right though thinking back so yes why has it taken 15 months to issue the Alert?
 
bs5973 erect up to 50metres/150 feet without a drawing
a facade brace would cover 100 foot,if something isnt broken why try and fix it
 
If we have to go back to first principles, using Euro codes for wind and scaffold design, there is going to be a busy time and a lot of bottle necks in scaffold design offices - could be a reducing number of scaffolds being erected over the coming months!!

Anyone in favour of getting out of Europe?
 
I've heard on the grape vine that the NASC have asked CADS to do the TG20:13 re-write... anyone shed any light on that? Terry?

I'm not convinced that there isn't a conflict of interest... but I'm ready to listen with an open mind!
 
BMB said:
I've heard on the grape vine that the NASC have asked CADS to do the TG20:13 re-write... anyone shed any light on that? Terry?

I'm not convinced that there isn't a conflict of interest... but I'm ready to listen with an open mind!
Click to expand...

terry, welcome to the monopoly:eek::laugh::laugh:
 
We should revert back to british standard,as it seems that the european norm.is only practised by us,them europeans just chuck any old sh it up and no one gives a feck:mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom