aussiebenji
Member
Basically I'm on a site in Australia.
We have half uk, half Aussie boys.
I'm English by origin and taught and ticketed there.
So heres the argument.
We have a scaffold 7 bays kick stage with a canterlevere2.4m bay either side over the road.
It's 8 lifts high, beams are in the 5 lift and were using
8m layers either side.
All lifts are boarded and as its over a road the bottom of the spur can be no more than 3.7m down from the underside of the beam.
The Australians have there spurs starting 2.4m out onto the bottom chord of the beams and finishing 3.7m Down
The Uk boys including my self have gone 1.5m out onto the bottom chord and finished 3.7m down.
Now we argue our angle is better and stronger and transfers the weights into the beam then straight down the spur.
They say there's is stronger. Personally I have a scaffolding and structural back ground but therefore know this to be wrong.
Basically opinions please guys to end this because this is scaffold 13 of 63 and I'm bOred to tears arguing!!
We have half uk, half Aussie boys.
I'm English by origin and taught and ticketed there.
So heres the argument.
We have a scaffold 7 bays kick stage with a canterlevere2.4m bay either side over the road.
It's 8 lifts high, beams are in the 5 lift and were using
8m layers either side.
All lifts are boarded and as its over a road the bottom of the spur can be no more than 3.7m down from the underside of the beam.
The Australians have there spurs starting 2.4m out onto the bottom chord of the beams and finishing 3.7m Down
The Uk boys including my self have gone 1.5m out onto the bottom chord and finished 3.7m down.
Now we argue our angle is better and stronger and transfers the weights into the beam then straight down the spur.
They say there's is stronger. Personally I have a scaffolding and structural back ground but therefore know this to be wrong.
Basically opinions please guys to end this because this is scaffold 13 of 63 and I'm bOred to tears arguing!!