Ridiculous Design Checks (1 Viewer)

AshReactive

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2010
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
Location
Bristol
I imagine we have all experienced a few of these;

You submit a design to a large company for a big job, That design goes off to be checked, now sometimes it goes to internal temporary works teams, who vary dramatically in credibility and ability, and sometimes to external structural engineers, some of which has to be walked through the terms 'standards' 'transoms' and 'ledgers' are.

Surely it would be easier and much more beneficial for everybody, even with all the secretive behavior we often experience between design companies, to send your designs off to other scaffold designers. Even though it isn't up to us most of the time. Does anybody know if this could, with the right sort of influence soon become something that would be common practice.

Any thoughts on this? Or should i just keep my winging to myself from now on.
 
Whinge, whinge bloody whinge! ;)

The only time I have really had any bother is when the companies internal temporary works team is mostly newly graduated engineers and they do things like assume, because all lifts are boarded, that all lifts are working and should be fully loaded and start coming up with leg loads that look like telephone numbers.
 
Ha, if all my winging was made public, you may as well give me my own section.

I don't have much of a problem when it comes to the drawing, It's the calculations that bother me, Like you said, Telephone numbers with enough bearing pressure to punch through Reinforced concrete.

I just think larger companies such as Network rail or Debut should get there third party checks done by somebody who knows scaffolding and it's relevant methods of engineering. Not some, as hypocritical as this will sound, some poor apprentice that hasn't got a clue.
 
Do you use a lot of software packages for your calcs?
 
Nick, We don't use any.

All done by hand then inputted into an excel spreadsheet. Annoys me to no end, but is the best way to do it.

What do you use, and does it work well for you?

We use simple beam freeware but only because it produces pretty pictures that site agents love to see, Like moths to flames. (that, and it backs up our maths)
 
We use similar to you. Only asked because when I was doing a checking service for structures, most of the calcs came from a technician throwing numbers into a program which would then spew results without showing the actual math behind output. Used to annoy me to no end.

Most complicated bit of kit I use is MathCAD and that is only once in a blue moon because I'm the only one in the office that can use it.
 
He must be protecting his methods, Which is strange, because there don't seem to be any. I'd use a program but there aren't any good enough for the bespoke jobs,

And if there was it would probably cost a bloody fortune. I'll stick to hand writing thank-you very much.
 
We are all fond of a hand calc now and again.:laugh:
 
Ash,

I think your original point is a good one. The only practical issue I would see is time.. Everyone who is decent is busy, we plan work for our team 2-3 weeks ahead usually, so dropping off to do a check may be tricky at short notice.. but then, an hour is easily fitted in.

Having said that, if you spend the time to teach people (checking engineers) the basics (and thats all a decent engineer needs to understand the principles of the design) then they will appreciate your effort - what comes around, goes around!

On the second point.. we use Excel, beampal and CADS A3D, the later only rarely as its just not commercially viable (or necessary) for every job.

When I started everything was hand written, then we moved everything to excel (I sold my shares in tipex) and things have gotten gradually more and more complex with macros and VB programming to make them quicker and easier. Wind to Eurocode for example - we spent a lot of time developing an excel sheet to to this (not a fan of dumbed down TG20 option).. and its worth every minute.
 
BMB, I see your point, I have previously built up decent relationships with engineers who have been used repeatedly to check work, Which has always gone well later on down the line.

The gripe i usually have is when i spend a fair amount of time on a design only for it to be repeatedly beefed up and commented on by an engineer who doesn't really have a clue and is reading what he interprets out of TG20. (my personal favorite being an engineer who wanted a DDA compliant Staircase)

I will quite happily spend a few minutes explaining a few design principles, and explaining certain parts of a design if it saves me a few hours work and therefore my clients a few hours cost.

Also you should have bought yourself a Pencil, Ha, We do have a fair few spreadsheets for working out Set pieces of Scaffold such as independents and loading bays, However for either bespoke work or 'High Ranking' Clients such as Network Rail or Debut, They usually ask for Hand Calculations, So it's never been a skill I've wanted to go slack. and my mother always told me practice makes perfect.

However Thank-you for your input and if you ever come across a design of mine, feelfree to make a few comments and fire it back, I aim to continue to learn.
 
The usual comments I get from third party checks is "I wouldn't have used 2.6 megasplats, I would have used 3 megasplats." And little things like that. It's companies own in-house engineers that I usually have to spend a bit of time with.

It's not so much that they don't know how to calculate; they've just haven't had enough time spent with them on what to calculate.
 
Not only do they need to check the scaffold design but also they need to ensure that the loads imposed by the scaffold design can be taken by the ground, structure or whatever the design is to be built/slung from etc.... for this reason it can be assumed that it must be checked by the client who is in possession of the necessary drawings etc....
 
Can't say I mind the whole design checking process - good engineers stand out a mile and if they have anything to say then they probably have a point.

What irritates me is the effort and professionalism in the process that goes in to getting the design checked and approved before starting on site and then nobody gives a hoot to what is actually erected!

What's the point!
 
Can't say I mind the whole design checking process - good engineers stand out a mile and if they have anything to say then they probably have a point.

What irritates me is the effort and professionalism in the process that goes in to getting the design checked and approved before starting on site and then nobody gives a hoot to what is actually erected!

What's the point!

A point well made and often missed
regards
Alan
 
Top Bottom