Help end a spur debate UK vs Australia (1 Viewer)

aussiebenji

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Location
Adelaide
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!!
 
There are two considerations and two answers:
Consider: Load wants to travel in a straight line, thus the nearer the similarity to the load direction the more efficient the brace.
1) The UK brace is a better angle and transfers the load more efficiently. The brace would be approx. 4m in length and would require breaking with an intermediate lift.
2) The Australian Brace would be approx. 4.4m in length and again would need to be broken with an intermediate lift. This brace does not transfer the load as efficiently thro’ the flatter angle.
However:
the full extent of the question should considered, the Australian brace may in fact produce a stronger scaffold by eliminating the cantilever bending in the beam(although the fulcrum for overturning has remained in the scaffold)
 
I get your principal of the fulcrum point. Although that means the 2.4m span of beam is carrying the load horizontally till the next standard compared with 0.9m of beam before the load is transferred.
Also on a minor side not you would never push that 8m out further to add an additional 1.8 bay onto it so there was 2.4 + 1.8m canterlevered with the Aussie spur....?
 
No mate been up to Tiddworth Army camp,Leeds yesterday on the Tetlys Building ,liverpool tomorrow .Bring on Friday ,as you can see have spanner must travel.:D:D:D
 
:laugh::laugh:

Just as well your there to keep him right workshy.:laugh:
 
I was told o day by the instructor no less than 33 tell them ya marra woto says its 33 now awey ta fu ck lol ;)
 
three lifts above the beams i would pull back from top aswell
but below i would about 1.8 out two lifts down
 
hello Ben its your workmate Steve here, can't believe you lot are still going on about this:D

I'm on the same site, but luckily not really involved with the modular stuff, I'll get a couple of pics tomorrow for those that want to see what the argument is about:eek:;)
 
can anyone settle this argument for me please, a spur in compression is a spur fixed under cantilevered ledgers via the tranny to the tranny in the lift below.cheers
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom