The difference between temporary and permanent structures?

stjosephboy said:
Dangeruss you must be some sad gimp to go into detail with your specs and regs.as normal from experience your probably she/ite on the spanners
Click to expand...

Isnt that the point of the forum, to help someone with the regs and specs.
Theres a guy on here called alan reade who knows almost anything and everything about scaffolding...so are you calling him a gimp as well.

This is a scaffolders forum after all.
 
I thought this might get a few going. ;)

Good points well put Russ.
 
It was an interesting subject, full of controversy. yet more contradictions to follow. I wonder what the makers of Monarflex and the BRE would have to say about the NASC plans to de-bunk their claims.

I'd just like to see Stjosephsboy with a bag of toggles on a scaffold in a hurricane somewhere. See who wants to know about specs and regs then.
 
Lol, don't you just love the perfect scaffolders.

I've come across a few idiosyncrasies like this a couple of times. The guidance on nylon ties doesn't match some manufacturers guidance either.

It was nice to hear from Alan Reid on the subject though.
 
scaffy 1980 said:
Isnt that the point of the forum, to help someone with the regs and specs.
Theres a guy on here called alan reade who knows almost anything and everything about scaffolding...so are you calling him a gimp as well.

This is a scaffolders forum after all.
Click to expand...

superbly put denny poos

we all have our strengths and weaknesses but its the combined strengths of us all that makes its the best forum in the world even carlsberg couldnt do any better :D (ill put it to the test soon as i can lol)
 
On one of my trips to the sarf pacific, a cyclone had ravaged the island for 3/4 days. A lot of western style bungalows had lost roofs and severe damage to structure. The local homes were with wooden posts and high thatched roofs,no walls. The wind passed right thru them leaving little damage, is this possible with a temp roof no mono?
 
A temp roof is purley for protection from presipitation and snowfall, for mono is generally for wind protection.
 
could be shape of the roof which was sort of domed,as apposed to a high flat lid.:wondering:
 
saucy carnt. :laugh::laugh:

Im looking at a job that needs demolishing in a place called clophill. A 15 mtr long wall X 4 mtrs high. A dangerous structure, which has an ancient shore braced off the house wall, brick buttress has held up but wall above is leaning out of plumb by 100mm. Will need an independant along the length inside and outside, a leana just wont do lol Now the point is its a dangerous structure but its 250 years old so English heritage are kicking up a fuss. go figure.
 
dangeruss said:
Ok , Hypothetical question. I build a large scaffold, cover it in monarflex but fix the sheeting ties every .500mm in each direction instead of the manufacturers recommended interval of 1m, because after all, the NASC have agreed that the manufacturers recommendations aren't right. The scaffolds built to tg20:08, tied in according to sg4:11 and tested. A huge wind blows the scaffold down and kills an old dear and her dog ( Cuddles). HSE turn up and ask why the scaffold sheeting wasn't tied to the recommended 1m each way interval ? They argue that the sheeting , if tied to the specification, should have blown off and avoided the demise of the old dear and her dog (cuddles).After all, these people look at facts, the scaffold was built correctly, tested and tied so why would it fall down, there must be a reason. This must be the reason.

I now have two options to get me off the hook. I could use the old "Nasc technical committee agreed the Monarflex installation guide is rubbish, but haven't got round to telling anybody yet, so I ignored the manufacturers guidance " defence , but alas, they would probably counter with something like " but you didn't follow the correct sheet installation guide, making your sheeting twice as resistant to the wind ,thus killing the old dear and her dog (cuddles) the BRE have tested this stuff in wind tunnels and advise this tie interval, so there"

or the less appealing option of having to say, we built it properly, we tied it properly the only thing we deviated away from was the sheeting ties, we doubled them up. I'm guessing I'd go to jail and the NASC technical committee would be nowhere to be seen.

Obviously its a bit tongue in cheek, and I know you're in the design business, but you must see how it would look to the HSE ,after all if somebody dies they will pull out all of the stops to get a prosecution. Me mentioning that a guy on the forum said that the NASC technical committee have said that they think the monarflex tie intervals are wrong, therefore I ignored them , isn't going to work.
Click to expand...
Hypothetically you'd be ok as it states " a minimum of 1m "
 
I was just waiting for somebody to spot that, well done G scaff ( I hadn't ) hypothetically that is..
 
Interesting thread no??
That said, in general scaffolds are not normally designed with the view of sacrificial elements for a number of reasons.
Consider the following:
Sheeting comes Off in high winds lands on the windscreen of the passing number 37 bus with driver George and conductor (Betty), bus swerves runs over passing old dear with mutt (Cuddles). Bus crashes into wall killing George and knocking conductor (Betty) on her ar*e spilling her change bag all over the floor.

What is your defense for detachable sheeting??
 
I know Clophill, That's where James Hanratty killed his girlfriend on the A6 layby down there. Are you looking at the job on the old abandoned church ?

---------- Post added at 06:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 PM ----------
Alan Reade said:
Interesting thread no??
That said, in general scaffolds are not normally designed with the view of sacrificial elements for a number of reasons.
Consider the following:
Sheeting comes Off in high winds lands on the windscreen of the passing number 37 bus with driver George and conductor (Betty), bus swerves runs over passing old dear with mutt (Cuddles). Bus crashes into wall killing George and knocking conductor (Betty) on her ar*e spilling her change bag all over the floor.

What is your defense for detachable sheeting??
Click to expand...
If it was built correctly and the sheet detached due to high winds would that not be an act of God ? After all in the fitting instructions its designed with that very purpose in mind.
I suppose what needs to be considered is damage limitation. Tons of scaffold crashing down in a busy road or area , (the exact type of loacation that would lend itself to needing monarflex) or Monarflex coming off and hitting somebody. Its more likely that the scaffold would injure, kill or do more damage than the sheeting coming down. If you look at damage likelihood this must be why Monarflex is designed to detach in the first instant, otherwise it wouldn't matter. Just a thought. sorry to hear about Cuddles...again.
 
Not the church Dangeruss, Clophill house, use to be a care home I think, Youngish couple doing afew alerations,creating an orangery, how posh is that. lol.

If it didnt release and pulled the scaffold down with similar results,who'se responsibily is that,(scenario)possible tie failure Allan, all a bit of a mess as usual.
 
If you tie and adequatley test you should be covered.
If you fix the sheeting in accordance with the manufacturers instructions you should again be covered.

If; however, you do not build to code, perform suitable tests and or work outside the manufacturers guidekines will will be the obvious target.

---------- Post added at 09:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:02 AM ----------

In normal cirscumstance ties do not fail unless they are incorrectley installed or the building substrate fails.

If yiou have correctley installed the ties and can demonstate same via test reports which you are requirerd to keep, you should be fine.
If the substrate fails ie: a good anchor pulls out of a sh*t wall you should look to your quotation which should always contain a "Foundation Clause" this clause will direct the customer to ensure that the foundations provided and or building can safley withstand all loads imposed upon it by the scaffold in use.

---------- Post added at 09:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 AM ----------

In normal cirscumstance ties do not fail unless they are incorrectley installed or the building substrate fails.

If yiou have correctley installed the ties and can demonstate same via test reports which you are requirerd to keep, you should be fine.
If the substrate fails ie: a good anchor pulls out of a sh*t wall you should look to your quotation which should always contain a "Foundation Clause" this clause will direct the customer to ensure that the foundations provided and or building can safley withstand all loads imposed upon it by the scaffold in use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom