The real impact of tg 20... (1 Viewer)

moanalot

Well-known member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
218
Reaction score
0
I have just watched the nasc video on the above subject.

I can sort of apreciate what they are trying to do but i can't help thinking that the system is a little bit "over the top " for every structure.Yes i could see it working in central london and on the streets in the big city's but not round the back of a terrace house in Handsworth...

We are the first to encounter these new changes and I am a little bit nervous about having to raise my prices to account for all the extra work that we are going to have to do.

Also how on earth are we going too enforce "you can board out all lifts but only 1 lift is 100% loading and 1 lift 50% loading"??What would be the point of boarding 20 lifts when you can only just about work on 2?...

1 question...are easy fix classed as system scaffold?
 
i can see how progressive bricklaying can be one working lift .....


i dont see it with maybe 3 painters working on a 6 lift scaffold on a house front each working on a different lift
 
Hi, Moanalot, Are Easy Fix classed as system scaffold ?. My answer would be no as system is described as comprising pre fabricated units. The transom itself is pre fabricated, but as you have to add T/F to build the scaffold it would'nt qualify as system.
 
Hi, Moanalot, Are Easy Fix classed as system scaffold ?. My answer would be no as system is described as comprising pre fabricated units. The transom itself is pre fabricated, but as you have to add T/F to build the scaffold it would'nt qualify as system.
Cheers Brandy...Just curious because when I worked for sgb with the cuplock system we were always having to mix in t&f to make it "work"...Bit of a grey area??
 
been a few threads on the easy fix ....

if its not system then its ordinary tube and fitting thus need normal bracing or a different tie pattern .......

i think that was what was said
 
been a few threads on the easy fix ....

if its not system then its ordinary tube and fitting thus need normal bracing or a different tie pattern .......

i think that was what was said
Now then when i was younger sgb went to court with the hse on the subject of bracing ready lock and i think they won the case.I think the ruling was that you could erect upto 60 foot high without bracing but obviously with hiltie ties because sgb invented the sgb super tie that screwed into hiltie anchors...
 
i can see how progressive bricklaying can be one working lift .....


i dont see it with maybe 3 painters working on a 6 lift scaffold on a house front each working on a different lift

I agree timthumb, with the Brickies, lift. 1 lift fully loaded, 50% upper or lower lift loaded as TG20:08.

However, mate, Is loading a issue, on 'Access & Egress' and light duty scaffolds for 'Painters' if they are working on a 3.4.1, 3.5.1 that is fully boarded for a General purpose scaffold?
 
Take your point Moanalot, I use cuplok on some jobs and often compine it with T/F to get around awkward parts, It blends in well with cuplok, but would the scaffold be described as system or T/F ?. Puzzling one that, open to interpretation.
Easy FIX was developed sometime around the mid to late 60's, the purpose was to eliminate ledger bracing, probably on scaffolds to a certain height. Not surprised SGB won the case.
 
Double arms, transom units, bones/ animals are all pre fabricated and don't feature in tg20, hence double arms you need the manufacturers instructions or design
 
Hi All

If there are manufacturers instructions or designs for Easyfix/ ReadyLok I would be interested to seem them.

I had some infor from Hatterscaff , but this is dated 1969 so a bit out of date for current regulations.

If anybody got anything current would appreciate it as coming up against some checking engineers who want proof of scaffolds wihtout ledger braces.

Thanks
 
I'm not sure there is anything current, which would actually stand up to scrutiny. I've got an SGB user guide from BS5973 days which states rotational strength is 'approximate' to a welded connection, and a later ASP user guide which is pretty much a direct lift of the SGB text with the fitting SWL changed to 6.1kN :suspicious:

I've been making enquiries as I'd be interested in buying some if the supplier can provide the proof we'd need, but as yet none of the majors have been able to provide it, including SGB.
 
Last edited:
As the majority of us are not engineers and as Chris himself has stated he is having difficulties finding design information on the need or not of ledger bracing on easyfix scaffolds, Maybe to thicken the plot a bit we should look at the reason as to why we need ledger bracing on independent access scaffolds as opposed to similar bracing on system. We need ledger bracing on T/F to keep the standards plum and of an even width, not a requirement in system or easyfix. Ledger bracing acts as a stiffener and transfers weight from outside to inside standards and vice versa, so why is this not required in system on medium weight scaffolds. Standards on T/F on working lifts are connected via the inside and outside ledgers by single couplers ( non load bearing) hence the need for ledger bracing, even if you use Mills 90's ledger bracing is required to keep the width. If you are using double to double the pull apart force for a class A double is 20.0kn 2 ton. class B 30.0 3 ton. ledger bracing still required even if only to keep thr width. So in the case of a prefabricated unit an easyfix/readylok transom the width remains the same from top to bottom and the pull apart force hardly applies. As stated I'm definitelly not an engineer, but as long as the tying in pattern's are adhered to, my feeling is that ledger bracing is not required on the type of scaffolds discussed. Interested to hear an opposing opinion.
 
As I understand it, it's more to with the potential rotation / twisting of the fitting. The ledger / transoms of system scaffolds have a large area in contact with the standard to prevent any rotational force, which is not the case with tube and fittings. An easyfix / readlok transom has an even larger area in contact with the standard so it shouldn't need bracing, but as yet I'm not aware of anyone doing the calculations / testing for this.
 
Double arms, transom units, bones/ animals are all pre fabricated and don't feature in tg20, hence double arms you need the manufacturers instructions or design
iv said this before but double arms/easyfix were designed so you could erect a braceless scaffold as long as the the scaffold has sufficient ties then ledger bracing is not needed . if braces are needed we may as well ditch them completely as they are not doing the job they were designed to do . good look finding a designer with enough backbone to leave them out a drawing though
 
i dont know what has changed in 2 year, but it used to be explained on the generation readylok brochure that you didnt need bracing for 16 lifts/32M.
Northern rock house erected with readylok, full design drawing erected to the 16th lift with no ledger bracing, when the scaffold was up to the 16th the lads went back and installed ledger bracing every row of standards in the bottom six lifts (which were now out of use) getting ready to take the scaffold up to 22 lifts. tie pattern all standard stuff 16m2, fully boarded and debris net.
what has changed? because there is no way this engineer ( not designer calvin klien etc, his words not mine) would have drew it.

debate
 
what has changed? because there is no way this engineer ( not designer calvin klien etc, his words not mine) would have drew it.

Because Contractors Temporary Works Checkers are becoming very good at asking awkward questions :laugh:

I have SGB and Combisafe user guides which say their transom units can be used unbraced up to 30m. Ask them for proof of this, ie. calculations or test data, and they're not so forthcoming.
 
Because Contractors Temporary Works Checkers are becoming very good at asking awkward questions :laugh:

I have SGB and Combisafe user guides which say their transom units can be used unbraced up to 30m. Ask them for proof of this, ie. calculations or test data, and they're not so forthcoming.
Hard to believe a company of the stature of SGB would risk making a claim of that nature without back up evidence. Is it down to the fact that the checkers are not up to speed on the design element in engineering and will not stick their neck out.

---------- Post added at 08:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:38 PM ----------

I remember using a system in the70's similar to readylok/easyfix, The standards were 3m and had lugs welded on something similar to the standards in RMD'S U.P system. The transom slotted on to the lugs similar to the UP system, but tubing ledgers were used the same as in readylok/easyfix. Ledger bracing was not required. Obviously the slip load on the transom was far greater as it did'nt rely on bolts for support, I can't remember what it was called, but I remember it was a lot faster than anything I had used at the time including Kwikstage, Cuplok, H frames, and T/F. Often thought it would be an idea to bring it out again, only 3 components needed, Base jack, Standard, Transom, the rest is T/F. Far cheaper to stock than any other system and twice as fast.
 
similar to easyfix

brandy, what you are describing is stephens and carters transfix
 
Thanks for that Scaftek, for years I've racked my brain trying to remember the name, Transfix it was. Did you ever use it and if so what you think of it. Like I said I thought it was a great idea, but have not seen it since.
 
transfix

used it in 1974 for stephens and carter really fast once based out great for 3m lifts had to be well tied and braced because transoms only slotted on stds. had tbe careful with ledgers if you undone all the ledger bolts it would roll out onto your head.the plates on the transom units were made of really thin steel breathe on them and they would bend meaning you would have to hammer them out to fit. they also did an ally version though i think this was only the stds overall a really good system for light access
 
Top Bottom