Harpur Hill, Buxton SK17 9JN

Telephone: +44 (0)114 289 2000

Facsimile: +44 (0)114 289 2050

Scaffold Fan Testing

Report Number

HSL/2003/17

Project Leader: P D McCann

Author(s): R A Richardson
Science Group: Engineering Control

© Crown copyright 2003

 CONTENTS

1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Recommended fan structures ........................................................................................ 1
1.3 Observed fan structures................................................................................................. 2
2 Experimental procedure...................................................................................... 4
2.1 Fan configurations......................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Test items ...................................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Launch techniques......................................................................................................... 7
2.4 test procedure ................................................................................................................ 8
2.5 Instrumentation.............................................................................................................. 8
3 Results ................................................................................................................. 9
3.1 Initial testing.................................................................................................................. 9
3.2 Quick reference guide to results.................................................................................... 9
3.3 Examples of damage caused to fan ............................................................................. 15
4 Observations...................................................................................................... 17
4.1 Examination of trends ................................................................................................. 20
5 Further testing ................................................................................................... 22
5.1 Floor zero tests ............................................................................................................ 22
5.2 Guided transom ........................................................................................................... 22
5.3 Wet and dry board performance.................................................................................. 23
5.4 Double board testing ................................................................................................... 23
6 Conclusions and recommendations ................................................................ 25
6.1 Fan placement ............................................................................................................. 25
6.2 Pole spacing ................................................................................................................ 25
6.3 Fan and platform Gaps ................................................................................................ 25
6.4 Fan sheeting ................................................................................................................ 25
6.5 Double Boards............................................................................................................. 27
6.6 Trends.......................................................................................................................... 27
7 Appendix 1 Detailed test results tables............................................................ 28
8 Glossary ............................................................................................................. 40

iii
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

HSL Field Engineering Section were contracted by HSE to carry out testing of scaffold
fans resembling those commonly used by industry. Representative fan structures were
constructed and instrumented to determine the effectiveness of these structures at
retaining typical building objects falling in likely scenarios.

· The light duty style scaffold fans tested were not suitable for the retention of typical
building objects from drop heights of above 4.7 m.

· Retention failure was more likely to be due to the falling object missing the fan than as a
result of structural failure.

· Items impacting the fan directly above one of the supporting fan poles were more likely to
be retained than similar items impacting an unsupported region of the fan.

· Many items, or parts of items, were not retained by the fan because they fell through the
gap between the fan and the working platform.

· Some items bounced up off the fan and span through the air, landing as far as 10 m from
the centre of the fan. This could translate to a much greater distance if the fan were
mounted at a greater height, as it would be in practice.

· An increase in the angle of incline of the fan did not appear to improve fan retention. In
fact the loss of horizontal surface area resulting from increased incline made it slightly
less likely that an object would impact the fan. With a steeper angle, it was also more
likely that objects would tumble down the fan and fall through the gap between the fan
and the working platform, or bounce off the fan onto the working platform.

· Debris ejection extended as far as 20 m from the centre of the fan following fan impact.

· High winds were a contributory factor to some falling objects failing to hit the fan.

· Small items such as couplers and bricks did not generally cause much damage to the fan
structure although it was more common for them to miss, bounce off or fall through gaps.

· The scaffold fans did not successfully retain the contents of the paint tins. The use of an
impermeable membrane covering the fan boards may help to prevent this.

· There was little correlation between the fans that failed due to structural damage and the
peak load of the impact that caused the damage.

· There was little relationship between the peak load and the drop height.

· There was little relationship between the peak load and the impact board position.

· Outer sheeting or netting could be considered to prevent falling debris missing the fan.

· Further protection to the fan level platform should be considered where there is a
possibility of objects deflected inwards by the fan injuring personnel or building
occupants.

iv
 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Scaffold fans are structures attached to the perimeter of a building or scaffolding to prevent
objects that may accidentally fall from the structure causing damage or injury to property or
persons on the ground. The fan consists of a structure jutting out from the scaffolding, which is
fitted with boards or decking to catch falling debris. They are usually inclined towards to
scaffolding and can often be seen in towns and cities where the scaffolding is situated directly
above the pavement or road.

Following incidents of scaffold fan failure, the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL), Field
Engineering Section (FES), Engineering Control Group were contracted by Martin Holden of
Construction Division Technology Unit to perform a series of tests to evaluate the performance
of scaffold fans in realistic situations.

1.2 RECOMMENDED FAN STRUCTURES

Scaffold fans are described in BS 5973: 1993 – Code of practice for access and working
scaffolds and special scaffold structures in steel, section 5, clause 25.1. The standard
describes four classes of fan for different applications, some examples of which have
been reproduced in figure 1 below.

Light duty (class A) fan Medium duty (class B) fan Heavy duty (class C) fan

Figure 1 Examples of scaffold fan classifications from BS5973

1
The standard defines the fans according to four classes of duty. These are as follows:

· Class A – Light duty, maximum loading of 0.75 kN/m2 for protection from
falling paint and mortar.

· Class B – Medium duty, maximum loading of 1 kN/m2, for protection from

aggregate and bricks falling from no more than 10 m.

· Class C – Heavy duty, for protection from bricks falling further than 10 m or
larger heavier items.

· Class D – (not shown) For protection from persons or similar weights falling
from less than 10 m.

1.3 OBSERVED FAN STRUCTURES

In practice, types of fan commonly used by industry are often very simple and resemble
class A most closely in their construction, though they rarely have support wires. They
appear to be used for protection against any possible falling debris that may arise from
the work being carried out on the scaffolding, its construction or decommissioning. This
may range from paint splashes to masonry and scaffolding components. There is also
generally only one fan per scaffolding, situated low down on the structure. Some typical
examples are depicted below.

A curved city centre fan with no support wires, but additional sheeted protection and toeboards
* constructors name removed

2
Steeply angled fan with trader directly beneath Unsheeted fan directly above access platform

Example of a fan that has collapsed under impact - note the scaffold boards forming the fan have not
been secured to the fan poles, thus when the fan collapsed, many of the boards also fell to the ground.
* constructors name removed

3
 2 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

A test program was specified to evaluate the performance of scaffold fans in realistic impact
scenarios. In order to observe the effects of differences in fan construction, several
configurations of fan were proposed. These were based on structures observed in industry.
Typical items that may be likely to fall from a scaffold were identified, as were the means by
which they may be likely to fall (launch technique). To represent the range of heights from
which a fan may be subjected to impacts, the Field Engineering 25 m test tower was used. The
test items were dropped onto the representative fan configurations from 2.7 m increments,
commencing from an initial height of 4.7 m above the fan.

2.1 FAN CONFIGURATIONS

The fans were constructed at a height of around 1.1 m from the ground for both configurations.
This is much lower than would be used in practice, but was necessary in order to gain frequent
access to the fan for replacement of damaged boards and poles. Boards used were those detailed
in table 1 and were stored outside under sheeting. The supporting structure was used for both
configurations and was built to a 2 m bay length, with one full lift height above the fan (2 m),
with longitudinal and ledger bracing (diagonal braces), to represent a typical scaffold structure.
Four types of typical fan construction were identified, two of which were tested.

2.1.1 Configuration D

Configuration D was the first to be built and tested. It was constructed with the fan virtually
horizontal by fixing the fan pole over the front ledger and under the rear ledger. This gave an
inclined fan angle of approximately 4 degrees. This is depicted below in figure 2.

5 6
3 4
1 2
O
4

Figure 2 Side view of configuration D fan

2.1.2 Configuration A

The second fan type to be built and tested was configuration A, shown in figure 3 below. This
was built in a similar manner to configuration D but a second rear ledger was inserted, below
which the fan poles were attached. With the constraints of the surrounding tower structure, an
angle of 12 degrees was achieved which seemed to resemble many observed structures. In
addition, a toeboard was fixed to the rear of the fan, and another to the front of the working
platform, in an attempt to evaluate this technique for preventing objects from falling through the
gap between the fan and the working platform. The addition of this toeboard was to have been
configuration B, but it was decided that the effectiveness of the toeboard installation could be
assessed without the requirement of a separate set of tests.

4
 6
5
4
3
2
1
O
12

Figure 3 Side view of configuration A fan

2.1.3 Configuration C

Another type of fan, configuration C (shown in figure 4), was identified. Following testing of
configurations D and A it was decided not to test this configuration. Being of a steeper angle to
the other fans, it has a reduced horizontal surface area, which the results of configuration A
testing suggested would result in more objects missing. It was also thought to be a weaker
design to the other configurations due to the large lever effect generated by the high ratio of the
long boarded part of the fan pole to the short fixing part. Load would also be applied to the
underside of the working platform and there would be a high pivot load around the front ledger.
Since the other configurations had already failed at these pivots, it seemed unlikely that testing
this design would offer any improvement in performance.

Figure 4 Side view of configuration C Fan (not tested)

Examples of fan configurations: A D C

5
2.2 TEST ITEMS

Test items were chosen to represent typical objects that are commonly used while working on
scaffolds or during their construction. These test items are detailed in table 1 below.

Table 1 Test items used

Picture of item Specifications

10 N block

Dimensions: 440x215x100 mm

Approximate wet weight: 20 kg

Thermal block

Dimensions: 445x215x100 mm

Approximate wet weight: 8 kg

Engineering brick

Dimensions: 215x100x65 mm

Approximate wet weight: 2.5 kg wet

5 L paint tin

Dimensions: 178 diameter x 223 mm

Approximate weight 80% full: 5.2 kg

Scaffold board

Dimensions: 2400x225x40 mm

Approximate wet weight: 10 kg

1.2m galvanised steel scaffold pole (transom)

Dimensions: 1200 x 49OD x 41ID

Weight: 5.4 kg

6
 90 degree scaffold coupler

Weight: 0.9 kg

Swivel scaffold coupler

Weight: 1 kg

2.3 LAUNCH TECHNIQUES

The open structure of the test tower also allowed the fan performance to be evaluated against
different launch techniques. The launch technique for each test item was chosen to represent the
way or ways in which it may be likely to fall from the scaffold. Release methods used were:

· Straight drop – this was the most straightforward and repeatable drop method.
The item was held, by its centre, over the handrail and dropped in an attempt to
land squarely in the centre of the fan. This method was applied in both
configurations to scaffold board (end on), 1.2 m transom (end on) and scaffold
coupler. It was applied in configuration A only to engineering brick, thermal
block, 10 N concrete block and 5 litre paint tin.

· Pivot over handrail – the scaffold board was rested with its centre on the
handrail and pivoted upwards until it slipped over the rail. This method was
applied to both configurations, but only using scaffold board.

· Roll off – the 1.2 m transom was aligned parallel with the edge of the working
platform and rolled until it fell from the tower. This method was applied to both
configurations, but only using the 1.2 m transom.

· Slid off – the item was placed near the edge of the tower floor and pushed off
using the foot. This method was applied to engineering brick, thermal block and
10 N concrete block in both configurations. In configuration D, it was also
applied to the 5 litre paint tin.

· Bounce off – a 45o springboard was manufactured, which was placed such that
an item bounced from it would just clear, or lightly catch the edge of the tower
floor. This was achieved by placing the springboard outer edge at around 400
mm from the outer edge of the working platform. This method was applied to
scaffold coupler, engineering brick, thermal block and 10 N concrete block, in
both configurations.

7
2.4 TEST PROCEDURE

The test program covered a height range of 7.4 m to 20.9 m in increments of 2.7 m, although
some extra tests were carried out from 4.7 m in configuration D. Where quoted, the drop height
is the distance between the floor of each drop level and the centre of the fan. Each item released
from over the handrail was thus released with its centre approximately 1 m above this height.

A number board was used for identification with a unique test number for every test. The first
digit of this number identifies the release floor of the test tower. Testing was carried out from
ascending floors. If structural failure occurred, no more similar tests were carried out using that
item from subsequent floors.

Immediately prior to the test, coupler slip potentiometer amplifiers were zeroed, logger and
cameras set running. With the area clear, the test item was released using the specified method.
After impact, cameras and loggers were stopped and a detailed digital photograph was taken
from a fixed location directly above the fan. Coupler slip values, resting place of the test item,
impacted board(s), fan retention and damage were noted.

The impacted boards, if any, were replaced after every test and labelled with the test number
and their position within the fan. Replacement boards were stored outside under sheeting. The
fan structure was checked after every test and repaired or replaced if necessary. The four
couplers supporting the fan were reinstalled to a torque of 60 Nm each time they were moved or
replaced.

Many of the configuration D tests that involved sliding an item off the tower, frequently missed
the fan. In order to explore the structural limitations of the fan with these items, the tests were
repeated until contact was made. In configuration A, testing also included straight drop tests.
These were carried out until the item passed through the fan structure. This was in addition to
the slide off tests that were carried out from every floor to give an impression of debris scatter.
Similarly, bounce tests were only carried out from ascending heights until the test item was no
longer retained.

2.5 INSTRUMENTATION

The ground around the fan structure was marked with circular lines designating every 2 m from
the centre of the fan. A video camera was situated directly overhead, with a wide field of view
to pick up debris dispersion. Another camera, synchronised with the first, was situated directly
in front of the fan, focused on the structure. A detailed digital photograph of the fan was taken
after every test where fan impact had occurred.

50 kN shearbeam loadcells were attached between the base of each of the four standards
(vertical poles) and plates that were firmly secured to the ground. This method allowed both
positive and negative loading measurements to be taken. Additionally, each of the four couplers
that supported the fan structure was fitted with a 25 mm linear potentiometer to measure
slippage. Eight Fylde 379TA amplifiers were used with the transducers. Loadcell data was
logged at 10 kHz using a laptop computer fitted with a data acquisition card. Potentiometer
readings were taken manually before and after each test. Loadcell and potentiometer data was
also recorded at 3750 Hz using an Earth Data Recorder S/N 8730 as a backup and in the event
of live potentiometer data being required at a later date.

Calibration of all instrumentation was carried out against externally calibrated references in
accordance with internal procedures. Data analysis was carried out using Jandel Scientific
Sigma Plot software.
8
 3 RESULTS

3.1 INITIAL TESTING

An initial period of testing was carried out from tower floor 4 (15.5 m) to evaluate the
suitability of the chosen test regime. Results gained from this testing can be found in table 2 in
the appendices.

A straight drop 21-foot scaffold pole (standard) was to have been one of the tests, but an initial
test (test D58) proved that this was difficult to manoeuvre on the tower and would pass through
the fan from all drop heights. It was substituted with the 1.2 m transom straight drop test.

The bounce test launch technique was altered to make it more realistic. The bounce board had
been situated flush with the edge of the working platform, but all of the test items bounced well
clear of the fan, even when lower levels were tried. This is a likely possibility in a working
environment with, for instance, a scaffold board propped up between the building wall and the
toe board. To gain more information and represent more scenarios it was decided that the item
should just clip the edge of the test tower floor as it bounced over the edge. To achieve this, the
springboard was moved back by 400 mm from the edge.

3.2 QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE TO RESULTS

The following figures 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are a quick reference guide to the tests carried out for
which the fan failed to retain the dropped item. There are two figures per configuration of
scaffold fan tested. These differentiate between those items that were not retained because they
caused structural failure to the fan, for example broke through one or more boards, and those
items that rebounded off the fan, or missed it entirely.

Each item is represented as an icon. The release method applied to it is represented by an action
mark. A key on each figure explains the designation of each symbol.

The position of the icon on the horizontal (debris scatter) scale indicates the final distance
between the centre of the fan the farthest extreme of the item, or debris from it. Scatter was not
measured beyond 12 m, so those items in the 12 m+ range could have scattered much further.
Icons, which appear below zero on the horizontal debris scatter scale, are those objects that fell
through behind the fan. This could either be the entire item, or a significant part of it, and could
also be due to the item rebounding off the fan and working platform mesh.

The position of the icon on the vertical (floor height) scale indicates, to the nearest lift, the
height above the fan from which it was released. This height was measured between the centre
of the fan and the floor of the lift, so those items released over the handrail (straight drop and
pivot release) will be centred approximately 1m higher than the indicated height.

The text adjacent to the icons on Figure 6 and Figure 8 indicates the fan board or boards were
impact occurred. Boards are numbered from the tower outwards as indicated on the fan drawing.

Similarly the red stars on Figure 5 and Figure 7 differentiate between those items that missed
the fan entirely, and those that rebounded off. Objects that were retained by the fan are not
shown. Figure 9 is a summary of the lowest failure heights for each object.

The figures are proportionally scaled. Spreadsheets giving more detailed results can be found in
Appendix 1.
9
 6 Behind Fan

20.9

18.2

15.5

12.8

Floor Height (m)

2

10.1

7.4
Items Release Methods

0 Scaffold Board
Pivoted
Over
Handrail
1.2m Steel Transom
4.7
Engineering Brick Roll Off

Thermal Block
-1 Slid Off

10N Concrete Block

Bounced Off
Scaffold Coupler 2.0
Straight Drop
5L Paint Tin Over Handrail

Items that missed the fan

6
1 2 3 4 5
0

-1.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 +
Debris Scatter (m)

Figure 5 Items that were not contained because they missed or bounced off the fan,
showing drop height, release method and debris scatter, configuration D

10
 6 Boards 2 & 3

20.9
Boards 2 & 3

18.2

15.5

12.8

Floor Height (m)

2

10.1
Board 3

1 Board 6

7.4

0 Items Release Methods

Pivoted
Scaffold Board Over
Handrail 4.7
1.2m Steel Transom

Engineering Brick Roll Off

-1
Thermal Block
Slid Off

10N Concrete Block 2.0

Bounced Off
Scaffold Coupler
Straight Drop
5L Paint Tin Over Handrail
6
1 2 3 4 5
0

-1.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 +
Debris Scatter (m)

Figure 6 Items that were not contained due to fan structural failure, showing drop
height, release method, debris scatter and impact board(s), configuration D

11
 6 Behind Fan

20.9

18.2

15.5

12.8

Floor Height (m)

2

10.1

7.4
Items Release Methods

0 Pivoted
Scaffold Board Over
Handrail
1.2m Steel Transom
4.7
Engineering Brick Roll Off

Thermal Block
-1 Slid Off

10N Concrete Block

Bounced Off
Scaffold Coupler 2.0
Straight Drop
5L Paint Tin Over Handrail

Items that missed the fan

5 6
3 4
1 2
0

-1.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 +
Debris Scatter (m)

Figure 7 Items that were not contained because they missed or bounced off the fan,
showing drop height, release method and debris scatter, configuration A

12
 6 Boards 1 & 2

20.9
Board 4

5 Boards 4, 5 & 6
Board 3

18.2

4 Boards 3 & 4 Board 6

15.5
Board 2

3
Board 6

12.8

Floor Height (m)

2 Board 6

10.1
Board 2

1 Board 6

7.4

0 Items Release Methods

Pivoted
Scaffold Board Over
Handrail 4.7
1.2m Steel Transom

Engineering Brick Roll Off

-1
Thermal Block
Slid Off

10N Concrete Block 2.0

Bounced Off
Scaffold Coupler
Straight Drop
5L Paint Tin Over Handrail
5 6
3 4
1 2
0

-1.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 +
Debris Scatter (m)

Figure 8 Items that were not contained due to fan structural failure, showing drop
height, release method, debris scatter and impact board(s), configuration A

13
 6 Behind Fan

20.9

18.2

15.5

12.8

Floor Height (m)

2

10.1

7.4

0 Items Release Methods

Pivoted
Scaffold Board Over
Handrail 4.7
1.2m Steel Transom

Engineering Brick Roll Off

-1
Thermal Block
Slid Off

10N Concrete Block 2.0

Bounced Off
Scaffold Coupler
Straight Drop
5L Paint Tin Over Handrail
6
1 2 3 4 5
0

-1.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 +
Debris Scatter (m)

Figure 9 Lowest height of failure for each object – click on icon for video of drop

14
3.3 EXAMPLES OF DAMAGE CAUSED TO FAN
As a comparative
example of typical fan
damage, the following
pictures were taken
immediately after
impact. They show the
damage caused by a
10 N concrete block as
it was slid from the
floor of the working
platform during
testing from ascending
floors of the tower.

DSC_1841
Floor 1 (7.4 m) minimal damage caused to boards 3, 4 & 5

DSC_1851
Floor 2 (10.1 m) block fractures board 6 and bends centre pole

DSC_2058
Floor 3 (12.8 m) block fractures board 6 and bends centre pole

15
 DSC_2070

Floor 4 (15.5 m) block destroys board 6 and significantly DSC_2070

distorts centre pole

DSC_2077

Floor 5 (18.2 m) boards 4,5 & 6 shattered, centre pole very distorted and half block dropped

DSC_2081

Floor 6 (20.9 m) boards 1 & 2 shattered

16
 4 OBSERVATIONS

· Peak loads recorded at the front standard feet were positive (downwards) where those of
the rear standards were negative (upwards). This can be explained by the construction of
the fan configurations tested. The three fan poles pivot about the front ledger (supported
by the front standards) applying a downward load to the front standards and an upward
load to the rear standards. Coupler slip, where it occurred, was in the same direction as
the load.

· The 10 N concrete block tests shattered the fan boards from the lowest scheduled drop
height (7.4 m) in both configurations (Tests D104 and A104). Further testing was carried
out from 4.7 m on configuration D to investigate this further (see section 6).

· The 1.2 m transom, when dropped end-on in both configurations, punched through the fan
board from the 7.4 m (Tests D108 and A108). In both tests, the transom had impacted the
fan at the gap between boards two and three. Further testing was carried out to evaluate
this failure by replicating the impact (see section 6).

· The scaffold board, dropped end-on in configuration D, (Test D507) punched through the
fan board from floor 5 (18.2 m). In configuration A (Test A307), this occurred at floor 3
(12.8 m). This is likely to have been because the board hit the area of the fan supported by
the centre pole in test D507 where it impacted on an unsupported area of board in A307.
This theory is borne out by test D307, where the board landed square on the centre of the
fan board, the centre tube again provided extra support. This caused significant damage to
the structure, but did not completely fracture the impact board.

· Several items that were not retained by the fan bounced off to the side. On a scaffold, a
fan that was more than one bay wide may well have retained these items providing the
item had not fallen adjacent to one of the ends.

· Some items, or parts of items, were initially retained by the fan, but rolled down the
inclined surface, or rebounded, through the small gap between the fan and the working
platform. These gaps were frequently present in the observed scaffold fans, so this effect
could present a serious problem. Even when extra toeboards were fitted to the rear of the
fan and to the front of the working platform, some items still rebounded over the fan
toeboard and fell through the gap. This effect makes it impossible to say that fan is safe
for use at any particular height below the working platform without introducing other
controls.

· Some items, scaffold boards in particular, bounced up off the fan and span through the air,
landing as far as 10 m from the centre of the fan. This could translate to a much greater
distance if the fan were mounted higher up, as it would be in practice. Theory would
suggest that any object that falls with a long edge at an angle of less than 90 degrees off
the perpendicular will spin in the direction of that angle upon impact with the fan. This is
explained in figures 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3.

17
Figure 10.1 Board drops at a slight angle off perpendicular

Figure 10.2 Board impacts fan. Momentum acting on the board at the point of impact
is taken up by bending of the fan poles and boards causing the bottom of the board to
slow. Momentum acting on the top of the board remains unhindered. This is now
travelling faster than the bottom of the board, causing it to rotate

Figure 10.3 Fan springs back up applying force upwards into the bottom of the board
(now the left), further increasing rate of spin and/or height of bounce

18
· The increase in the angle of incline of the fan between configuration D and A did not
appear to significantly improve the retention. In fact the loss of horizontal surface area
created by the added incline (680 cm2) made it fractionally less likely that an object
would impact the fan. Also the steeper the angle, the more likely it was that objects would
tumble down the fan and fall through the gap between the fan and the working platform,
or bounce off the fan onto the working platform.

· Spray from 10 N blocks that missed the fan extended as far as 20 m from the centre of the
fan. Also on several occasions, some large pieces of debris dropped though board gaps.
On one occasion (Test A513) a large piece of block bounced over the top of some brick
guard that had been erected to protect the working platform to handrail height (1 m).

· The effect of wind on falling objects such as scaffold boards and transoms was quite
considerable. Many tests had to be repeated or postponed due to high winds blowing
falling boards way off course. Some boards were blown away from the fan and missed as
a result. In test A406, the board was blown into the tower as it fell, ripping away the brick
guard from the fan level working platform and impacting a support pole in the gap
between the two toe boards. Wind effects may not have been as pronounced had the tower
not been an open structure, but it is worthy of consideration.

· Small items such as couplers and bricks generally did not cause much damage to the fan
structure although a brick did pass through a configuration A fan board from floor 5 (18.2
m) in test A502. It was however more common for them to either miss or bounce off the
fan. They were also more likely to fall through the gap between the fan and the working
platform.

· The scaffold fans did not successfully retain the contents of the paint tins. They were
relatively capable at retaining the tins, but some form of waterproof sheeting over the fan
would be required to retain the contents.

· In configuration A, slide off tests were only carried out from floors where the items had
not previously been retained in configuration D tests. This was to give a comparison of
the configurations and an impression of debris scatter. These tests were in addition to the
straight drop tests that used the same item until failure. Similarly, bounce tests were
carried out in configuration D from every floor, where in configuration A, they were only
carried out until the test item was no longer retained. The combination of these
differences in test techniques largely accounts for the reduction in items shown on Figure
7 over those shown in Figure 5.

· During scheduled testing, all fan boards were clipped to the outer fan poles using putlog
clips. No boards became detached from the fan poles due to coupler failure. During
double board testing the fan boards were clamped between parallel poles. These
frequently fell off, or opened as a result of an impact. It is likely that having the board
firmly clamped to the structure is beneficial in spreading the load.

19
4.1 EXAMINATION OF TRENDS

It was expected that there would be some correlation between impact load and structural failure.
The assumption being that high impact loads would be most likely to cause failure of the boards
or poles forming the fan. To examine this relationship in further detail, the greatest of the peak
loads from each impact was plotted against the tower floor from which the item was dropped.
Symbols designate which impacts had caused structural failure. See figure 11 below. The graph
shows structural failures occurring randomly though the range of loads for each tower floor.
This indicates that there is no relationship between the peak load recorded at the base of the
standards and the failure of fan boards and poles. In fact the findings also suggest that there is
no relationship between the peak load recorded at the base of the standards and the drop height.

16
Impacts causing structural failure - Configuration D
Impacts causing structural failure - Configuration A
All other Impacts - Configuration D
All other impacts - Configuration A
14

12

10
Peak Load (kN)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Tower Floor

Figure 11 Graph showing relationship of drop height to impact load

20
It was considered that there might be a relationship between the impact board and the peak load
due to the lever action of the fan. The assumption being that objects impacting the fan at the
outer extremities would generate greater loads due to lever action. However, this could be offset
by greater elasticity in the system at the outer boards due to pole and board bending. To
examine the hypothesis, a graph showing the greatest of the peak loads from each impact was
plotted against the impact board with symbols to designate which impacts had caused structural
failure. See figure 12 below. The graph suggests a slight tendency towards a reduction in impact
load at the outer boards, which would indicate that the elastic effect is greater than the lever
effect. A greater sample density and more controlled tests would be required to evaluate this to
any degree of accuracy.

16

Impacts causing structural failure - Configuration D

Impacts causing structural failure - Configuration A
Other impacts - Configuration D (excluding couplers)
14 Other impacts - Configuration A (excluding couplers)
Average (impacts to boards 1 & 4.5 ignored)

12

10
Peak Load (kN)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Impact Board

Figure 12 Graph showing relationship of impact board to impact load

21
 5 FURTHER TESTING

Some further testing was carried out as a variation from the scheduled test programme to
evaluate different aspects of scaffold fan retention.

5.1 FLOOR ZERO TESTS

For tests where items had not been retained by the fan from floor 1 (7.4 m) in configuration D,
the tests were repeated from floor 0 (4.7 m) onto a configuration D fan. The fan performed
significantly better at this height, retaining all but one item. See also 5.2 Guided Transom.

· The slid off 10 N block test (Test D002) landed across boards 3, 4 & 5 giving a peak load
of 6.27 kN and fracturing boards 3 & 4 but not penetrating the fan.

· The end-on 10 N block (Test D007) was retained, giving a peak of 8.7 kN. However,
given that the safe working load of a coupler is 6.25 kN these findings would suggest that
using a fan even at this height should be treated with caution.

· The bounce test of the brick (Test D005) was retained and gave a peak load of 1.6 kN

· The bounce test of the thermal block (Test D006) fell spinning, hit board 2 and cart
wheeled off the front of the fan. It failed to clear the 2 m ring and gave a peak of 6.2 kN.
The effect of the spin may be significant as there is nothing to suggest that it would
otherwise not have been retained at this height.

5.2 GUIDED TRANSOM

In test D308 (and also subsequently in test A308), the fan had failed to retain the 1.2m transom
with an end on drop from the lowest scheduled drop height (7.4 m). The sharp circular end of
the transom had struck the fan at the gap between boards 2 and 3, impacting the edge of board 3.
Following this failure it was decided to repeat the test from the level below, floor 0 (4.7 m).

To replicate the point of impact it was necessary to construct a wire guide mechanism for the
transom. Two nylon bushes were manufactured and inserted a few centimetres into each end the
transom so as to not affect the sharp edge of the tube. A small hole in the centre of these bushes
acted as a low friction guide when run down a taught length of Bowden cable that passed
through the fan at the gap between boards two and three. Even using this guide mechanism, five
tests were required to achieve two accurately reproduced impacts (Tests D003, D004, D008,
D009 and D010). The transom was retained in each of the five tests, giving peak loads of
between 4 and 5 kN. The closeness of these results suggested that the fan performance may be
repeatable.

22
5.3 WET AND DRY BOARD PERFORMANCE

Additional testing was carried out to compare the performance of those fans constructed from
wet boards and those using dry boards. All boards were taken from the same batch, which had
been stored outside under sheeting. The dry boards had been placed in a dry room for at least 36
hours. They were tested for moisture content prior to testing and gave an approximate indicative
average of 14% moisture. All wet boards had been left outside and soaked with a hose pipe
prior to testing. They were tested for moisture content prior to testing and all readings were
above the 25% indicative maximum moisture content that could be read by the instrument. All
tests were carried out from the top floor (20.9 m) using a 1.2 m transom that was rolled off from
the working platform.

· The two dry boards transmitted a higher peak loading to the structure than the wet boards.
A peak of 10.0 kN in test D6dry1 and 9.5 kN in test D6dry2 compared with 9.0 kN in
D6wet1 and 7.3 kN in D6wet2.

· Only D6dry1 retained the transom.

· D6wet2 and D6dry2 had board penetration.

· The greatest coupler slip occurred in test D6wet1, this was only 0.5 mm.

5.4 DOUBLE BOARD TESTING

To examine the effect of board strength on fan retention, testing was carried out using double
boards on fan configuration D. The modified configuration is shown in figure 13 below. Six
boards were placed tight against one another to form the lower level. Onto these, five boards
were placed such that they overlapped the gaps between the lower boards. The boards were
clamped using poles running parallel to the fan tubes. 10 N blocks were dropped onto the fan
from each floor using a straight drop over the handrail.

Figure 13 Double board arrangement on configuration D

· The fan retained the block from all but the floor 3 drop.

· Significant damage was caused to the fan poles from floors 3, 4, 5 & 6.

· The clamping tubes were parted by the impact on all tests.

23
· The floor 1 drop (Test D120) caused slight damage to upper boards 3, 4 & 5. Peak Load
was 9.7 kN.

· The floor 2 drop (Test D220) caused two boards to split, one across the impact point and
one down the length. There was significant coupler slip. Peak Load was 11.7 kN.

· The floor 3 drop (Test D320) caught the edge of the fan, grazing the edge of upper board
5, passing through lower board 6 and bending the centre fan pole. Peak Load was 8.9 kN.

· The floor 4 drop (Test D420) caused damage to three of the upper boards, and bent all of
the poles in the fan structure. Peak Load was 10.3 kN.

· The floor 5 drop (Test D520) caused damage to two upper boards and split two lower
boards. The left hand and centre fan poles were bent. Peak Load was 13.7 kN.

· The floor 6 drop (Test D620) smashed two upper boards and 1 lower board, damaging
several others. Left hand and centre fan poles and the front ledger were significantly bent.
Peak Load was 21.1 kN. The centre fan pole was struck with such force that it retained
the shape of the impact item.

24
 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 FAN PLACEMENT

Testing of both configurations of fan revealed that the 10 N block and 1.2 m transom shattered
the fan boards and fell to the ground from all 7.4 m straight drops. All objects that had not been
retained by the fan at 7.4 m in Configuration D were retested at 4.7 m. The items that had not
previously been contained due to structural failure were all retained when further testing was
carried out. This suggests that where there is any risk of similar objects falling from the
structure, a fan should be placed no greater than 4.7 m below the working level. It should be
noted that only nine tests were performed from 4.7 m, so it is entirely possible that a falling
object may penetrate the fan from this height if more tests were carried out.

6.2 POLE SPACING

During testing it was noticed that items impacting the fan directly above one of the supporting
fan poles were more likely to be retained than similar items impacting an unsupported region of
the fan. This was often at the sacrifice of the fan pole. The fan configurations used in testing had
bay lengths of 2 m, with transoms and fan poles spaced at 1 m intervals. It may be possible that
fan retention may be improved by decreasing the fan pole spacing. However, this would greatly
increase the weight of the fan and thus increase the load on the supporting ledgers and couplers.

6.3 FAN AND PLATFORM GAPS

When constructing a scaffold fan, the location of the standards and ledgers can lead to a gap
being formed between the inner fan board and the outer board of the platform (assuming a
platform is present at fan lift). This gap can often be sufficiently large to allow smaller items,
part items, or larger items with a small impact face (for example a scaffold board falling end-on)
to pass through. Some items, or parts of items, were initially retained by the fan, but tumbled
down the inclined surface and fell or rebounded, through the gap. This still occasionally
happened when extra toe boards were fitted to the front of the working platform and to the rear
of the fan. The findings suggest that these gaps must be filled, possibly by introducing other
controls such as fan sheeting.

6.4 FAN SHEETING

Many items that impacted the fan did not penetrate the boards, but were not retained because
they bounced off the fan. This was a particular problem with scaffold boards, that bounced up
off the fan and span through the air, landing as far as 10 m from the centre of the fan. This could
translate to a much greater distance if the fan were mounted at a greater height, as it would be
on a service scaffold. An increase in the angle of the fan did not appear to improve the
performance in this situation. The only item not to be retained at 4.7 m was a bounce test using
a thermal block (test D006). The thermal block bounced off the fan and cart wheeled in a
manner similar to that depicted in figure 10.

Similarly, 10 N blocks frequently broke up into many fragments on impact with the fan or the
ground beneath. The debris scatter from these impacts extended as far as 20 m from the centre
of the fan. Also on several occasions, some large pieces of debris dropped though board gaps.
This was also a problem with the contents of paint tins. In one test, a large piece of block
bounced over the top of some debris netting that had been erected to protect the working
platform to handrail height (1 m). This suggests that the level at which the fan is mounted

25
should be further protected where there is a risk of objects deflected inwards by the fan injuring
personnel or occupants of the building.

The vast majority of items that were not retained by the fan were dropped as a result of missing
it. This became increasingly likely with height. A six-board fan is a very small target from 25
m. The effect of wind on falling objects was also quite considerable, with many larger items
missing the fan or colliding with the test tower due to strong gusts changing their direction as
they fell.

Many of these effects may possibly be reduced or prevented by the use of sheeting and/or
netting on the scaffold structure. For instance, sheeting or netting extending vertically from the
outer edge of the fan, in the plane of the building, could prevent items bouncing off the fan from
being ejected. Also the use of an impermeable membrane covering the fan boards could prevent
paint from pouring through. If the membrane was manufactured from a relatively tough
material, it could also help to retain small rebounded items or debris and help to block the fan to
platform gap. Sheeting or netting running from the outer edge of the fan up to the height of the
working platform may help to guide falling objects and prevent them from missing the fan.
Some possible methods are shown in figure 14 below although these would require further
testing to indicate if any advantage is gained from their usage.

Figure 14 Possible methods of sheeting a fan

26
6.5 DOUBLE BOARDS

It appeared from the testing of double boarded fans in configuration D, see section 5.4 that there
was an improvement in retention. The double-boarded fans were only tested with straight drop
10 N blocks. Although significant damage was caused to the structure by the impacts, the blocks
were retained from all but the third floor drop height (12.8 m). The third floor failure was due to
the block grazing the outer edge of the fan rather than landing squarely on the boards. This
testing suggests that double boards could be used to reduce the likelihood of objects not being
retained due to board failure.

6.6 TRENDS

There appeared to be little correlation between the fans that failed due to structural damage and
the peak load of the impact that caused the damage. In fact, further analysis suggested that there
was also little relationship between the peak load and the drop height.

There was a suggestion of a possible relationship between the peak load and the impact board
position. The loads plotted on figure 12 appear to tail off slightly towards outer extremities of
the fan. On closer examination though, taking the average of the values at each board position
follows a sine wave pattern. There is such a large variation in the loading at each board position
that this may be completely meaningless.

Where tests were replicated for drop height, drop item and impact position, the peak loads were
very similar.

27
 7 APPENDIX 1 DETAILED TEST RESULTS TABLES

Table 2 Results of preliminary testing from floor 4 (15.5 m)

Impact Distance Sensor Positive Negative Coupler

Test Item Drop method board from fan location peak load peak load slip
(m) (kN) (kN) (mm)
Loads exceeding 6.25 kN SWL of coupler
D49 Coupler Straight drop 2 Retained Rear left 1.2973 -0.8895 0
retest Rear right 1.002 -1.1723 -0.02866
Front left 3.9992 -2.1219 0.26271
Front right 3.2741 -1.658 -0.1144
D50 Brick Slid off 4 Retained Rear left 1.0074 -1.4398 -0.0574
retest Rear right 0.8316 -1.3426 0.02866
Front left 3.1953 -1.2931 0.2919
Front right 3.5256 -1.5462 0.143
D51 Thermal block Slid off 3 Retained Rear left 1.7052 -3.4546 0.1148
retest Rear right 1.6132 -3.597 0
Front left 5.9014 -2.5563 3.38604
Front right 5.6167 -2.4777 0.2574
D52 10 N block Slid off 4 Punched Rear left 1.5136 -3.6954 0
through Rear right 1.9588 -2.9858 0.05732
Front left 6.7052 -2.9008 3.47361
Front right 4.4151 -2.296 -0.3146
D54 Scaffold board Pivoted All 2–4 Rear left 2.1819 -3.3613 -0.2009
Rear right 1.8586 -2.2995 0.1433
Front left 6.5804 -2.6611 3.88227
Front right 4.2055 -2.3426 0.1144
D55 Scaffold board End-on 0 Retained Rear left 1.7986 -1.5136 -0.0861
(miss) Rear right 1.4178 -2.6201 0
Front left 1.9022 -1.9522 -14.7701
Front right 3.2973 -1.6114 1.2298
D56 1.2 m transom Roll off 2 Retained Rear left 2.6143 -2.4718 0.0287
Rear right 1.2224 -2.3496 -0.11464
Front left 4.8479 -1.9771 4.93311
Front right 6.1197 -1.9793 0.0858
D58 21' standard Straight drop 5 Punched Rear left 1.8477 -1.5627 -0.4305
through Rear right 0.9819 -2.029 0.31526
Front left 3.465 -1.4828 3.94065
Front right 3.6839 -2.459 0.0286
D59 Coupler Bounce Miss 4
D60 Brick Bounce Miss 5
D61 Thermal block Bounce Miss 3
D62 10 N block Bounce Miss 3 - 20
Demo1 10 N block Straight drop 3 &4 Rear left -0.7462
Rear right 0.34392
Front left -0.49623
Front right 0.4004

28
 Table 3 Results of configuration D testing

Impact Distance Sensor Positive Negative Coupler

Test Item Drop method board from fan location peak load peak load slip
(m) (kN) (kN) (mm)
Loads exceeding 6.25 kN SWL of coupler
D101 Coupler Straight drop 1 Retained Rear left 0.9828 -0.7666 0
Rear right 0.9819 -0.9769 0.02866
Front left 2.5613 -1.4629 -0.11676
Front right 1.4996 -1.0665 -0.0286
D102 Brick Slid off 4 Retained Rear left 0.7912 -1.199 -0.1435
Rear right 1.002 -1.3226 0.11464
Front left 3.2902 -1.3381 0.05838
Front right 1.7278 -1.7046 -0.143
D103 Thermal block Slid off 2, 3, 4 Retained Rear left 1.6315 -2.3293 0
Rear right 1.3927 -2.029 0.02866
Front left 5.7267 -2.6561 3.38604
Front right 5.2534 -1.5462 -0.286
D104 10 N block Slid off 6 2-4 Rear left 1.9902 -3.8134 -0.1722
Rear right 1.3977 -2.9107 0.20062
Front left 8.0682 -4.2189 3.67794
Front right 6.2314 -2.9993 -0.1144
D105 5 L Paint tin Slid off No Retained Rear left 1.1103 -2.0238 0
damage Rear right 0.7512 -1.6567 0
Front left 4.5584 -2.2048 0
Front right 2.5206 -1.1671 0
D106 Scaffold board Pivot 5 2-4 Rear left 1.8477 -4.4866 0
Rear right 1.6382 -3.1061 -0.08598
Front left 7.6788 -3.1205 12.3182
Front right 4.7504 -2.4823 0.8866
D107 Scaffold board End on 4 2-4 Rear left 2.688 -3.72 0.2296
To side Rear right 1.543 -3.2013 -0.1433
Front left 5.6068 -2.2417 3.29847
Front right 5.9566 -2.3659 0.7722
D108 1.2 m transom End on 3 2 Rear left 1.7494 -2.0148 -0.1148
Rear right 0.9769 -1.2725 0.05732
Front left 4.3137 -1.7325 0.23352
Front right 3.3905 -1.2947 0
D109 1.2 m transom Roll 5 2-4 Rear left 1.3661 -2.3293 -0.1148
To side Rear right 1.3927 -1.6883 0.02866
Front left 3.1953 -2.3666 0.61299
Front right 2.8922 -2.4777 0
D110 Coupler Bounce 1 Retained Rear left - - 0
Rear right - - 0
Front left - - 0
Front right - - 0
D111 Brick Bounce Miss 3
D112 Thermal block Bounce Miss 2-3
D113 10 N Block Bounce Miss 1-2
29
D201 Coupler Straight drop 2 Retained Rear left 1.3907 -2.3047 0
Rear right 1.4178 -1.6633 0
Front left 3.1454 -2.4165 0.11676
Front right 2.8689 -2.501 0.0858
D202 Brick Slid 2 Retained Rear left 2.8551 -2.0394 0
Rear right 1.7134 -1.8085 0
Front left 4.2189 -1.7325 0.40866
Front right 2.4125 -1.4065 0.0286
D203 Thermal block Slid off 6 2 Rear left 2.1131 -3.6709 -0.1722
Rear right 1.3226 -2.2244 0.05732
Front left 4.9278 -2.1918 2.48115
Front right 3.5488 -2.0911 0.0572
D205 5 L Paint tin Slid off 3 Retained Rear left 1.2236 -1.7789 0.0287
Rear right 1.1022 -1.7635 0
Front left 3.0456 -1.9522 0.05838
Front right 2.7292 -1.8629 0.0286
D206 Scaffold board Pivot 2 6 Rear left 2.2064 -3.145 0.4305
Rear right 2.054 -2.7654 -0.1433
Front left 5.6568 -2.1219 1.4595
Front right 5.1649 -1.7046 0.2574
D207 Scaffold board End on 2 4 Rear left 3.8379 -3.4546 0.2009
Rear right 2.1041 -3.4017 -0.05732
Front left 7.1196 -1.9022 2.01411
Front right 8.1176 -1.9793 0.3718
D209 1.2 m transom Roll 4 Retained Rear left 1.5824 -3.2384 -0.4879
Rear right 1.543 -1.6633 0.17196
Front left 6.0961 -2.8259 -0.08757
Front right 3.4138 -1.9561 -0.3432
D210 Coupler Bounce 1 Retained Rear left 0.7666 -0.6487 0
Rear right 0.6362 -0.6362 0
Front left 2.4115 -0.9286 0.05838
Front right 1.9561 -0.8197 0
D211 Brick Bounce Miss 3
D212 Thermal block Bounce 5 2-3 Rear left 2.6389 -4.0787 0.0861
To side Rear right 1.7134 -2.029 0
Front left 10.2401 -5.512 10.2165
Front right 3.139 -3.4324 -0.6292
D213 10 N block Bounce 4 - Rear left 3.0713 -3.9608 -0.2583
Rear right 1.2474 -3.8676 0.22928
Prop left in Front left 5.2174 -5.7267 -0.46704
Front right 8.0291 -4.3871 0.143
D214 10 N block Bounce Miss 3
D301 Coupler Straight drop No - Rear left 1.4153 -1.0565 0.0574
damage To side Rear right 1.1723 -1.1723 0
Front left 3.8744 -2.3915 0.05838
Front right 1.7511 -1.2249 0.0286
D302 Brick Slid 6 6 Rear left 0.9091 -2.0639 -0.1148
Rear right 0.9268 -1.2224 0.08598
Front left 3.415 -1.6576 0.46704
30
 Front right 2.324 -1.3413 -0.1144
D303 Thermal block Slid off 5,6 2 Rear left 2.4718 -3.2384 0.1435
Rear right 1.5681 -3.0309 0.05732
Front left 6.8999 -3.1454 16.6091
Front right 4.2102 -3.0691 -0.8866
D305 5 L Paint tin Slid off 6 3-5 Rear left 1.6757 -2.6635 0
Rear right 1.6132 -2.57 0
Front left 5.1175 -2.9507 0.05838
Front right 4.6154 -3.1809 0
D306 Scaffold board Pivot Repeat 4-5 Rear left 0.3342 -0.3587 0
Rear right 0.3657 -0.511 0
Front left 0.5143 -0.679 0
Front right 0.4098 -0.34 0.0286
D307 Scaffold board End on 2 3 Rear left 2.6389 -3.3121 0.2296
Rear right 2.1041 -2.7153 -0.05732
Front left 9.2116 -2.5363 1.72221
Front right 7.121 -1.9561 -0.1716
D309 1.2 m transom Roll 4,5,6 7 Rear left 1.7494 -2.403 -0.0574
Rear right 1.2975 -2.1993 0.08598
Front left 6.8251 -3.8045 1.80978
Front right 4.5688 -2.8689 -0.286
D310 Coupler Bounce 6 2 Rear left 0.2162 -0.1671 0
Rear right 0.1703 -0.2705 0
Front left 0.4144 -0.5392 0
Front right 0.5449 -0.34 0
D311 Brick Bounce Miss 6
D312 Thermal block Bounce 4 Retained Rear left 1.2973 -2.7372 -0.287
Rear right 1.7635 -3.2764 0.1433
Front left 9.5311 -2.9058 0.43785
Front right 6.8462 -2.7944 -0.143
D313 10 N Block Bounce Miss 9
D314 Scaffold board Pivot 3 7 Rear left 2.1573 -2.6635 0.2296
Rear right 1.8837 -2.8606 -0.17196
Front left 5.2873 -2.3166 0.52542
Front right 5.6632 -1.8396 0.1716
D401 Coupler Straight drop 2,3 Retained Rear left 1.1057 -0.8157 0.0574
Rear right 1.1773 -1.1222 -0.02866
Front left 2.9757 -1.3181 -0.17514
Front right 1.7744 -0.8616 -0.1716
D402 Brick Slid Miss 2
D403 Thermal block Slid off 4 Retained Rear left 1.9214 -3.0959 0.0861
Rear right 1.8586 -3.056 0.08598
Front left 8.3378 -3.1454 0.61299
Front right 7.0744 -2.9993 0.2002
D404 Brick Slid off 2 Retained Rear left 1.2567 -2.0187 0.1148
Rear right 1.2554 -2.1867 -0.05732
Front left 8.7117 -2.3023 0.17514
Front right 3.6877 -1.3297 -0.1716
D405 5 L Paint tin Slid off 4 4 Rear left 1.7986 -2.5406 0.0861
31
 Rear right 1.4679 -2.2995 0
Front left 5.8015 -2.9257 0.17514
Front right 3.6373 -2.6826 0.1144
D406 Scaffold board Pivot 6 4 Rear left 1.9657 -2.806 -0.3444
Rear right 1.3727 -2.1292 0.20062
Front left 5.8015 -3.3152 0.2919
Front right 3.982 -2.7524 -0.2002
D407 Scaffold board End on 2 4 Rear left 2.6389 -3.9805 0.3731
Rear right 1.6382 -3.0059 -0.20062
Front left 9.7508 -2.4364 -2.45196
Front right 6.1197 -1.7744 -3.4034
D409 1.2 m transom Roll Miss 5
D410 Coupler Bounce No Retained Rear left 0.1179 -0.1229 0
damage Rear right 0.0751 -0.1453 0
Front left 0.1448 -0.2946 0
Front right 0.1118 -0.1583 0
D411 Brick Bounce Miss 4-8
D412 Thermal block Bounce Miss 3.5-7
D413 10 N block Bounce Miss 4-6
D414 Brick Slid off Miss 2
D415 Brick Slid off Miss 3
D416 1.2 m transom Roll 3 Retained Rear left 1.2482 -2.0148 -0.2583
Rear right 1.4428 -1.5631 0.2866
Front left 6.6303 -2.7061 0.35028
Front right 7.9593 -1.8629 -0.286
2,3 Wrong
D501 Coupler Straight drop floor 4 2 Floor
D502 Brick Slid 4 Retained Rear left 1.4398 -2.2556 -0.0287
Rear right 1.543 -2.8105 0.02866
Front left 4.8479 -2.0969 0
Front right 2.9807 -1.9095 0
D503 Thermal block Slid off 3,4,5 Retained Rear left 2.231 -4.5112 -0.1148
Rear right 1.543 -2.7404 0.11464
Front left 9.7758 -4.3636 0.46704
Front right 6.4363 -2.9807 -0.0572
D505 5 L Paint tin Slid off 6 2 Rear left 1.9657 -2.9731 0.0287
Rear right 1.7635 -3.2263 0.05732
Front left 5.4321 -3.3651 1.48869
Front right 5.3465 -3.4091 0
D506 Scaffold board Pivot 6 2-5 Rear left 0.7912 -0.8157 0.0287
Rear right 1.1022 -1.6132 0
Front left 1.4379 -1.1933 -0.02919
Front right 2.9807 -1.7278 0.0286
D507 Scaffold board End on 2,3 2 Rear left 1.032 -1.317 -0.0287
Rear right 1.1272 -1.7835 -0.02866
Front left 2.1169 -1.343 -0.14595
Front right 2.1377 -1.2481 -0.2574
D509 1.2 m transom Roll Inside 6 Rear left 2.3047 -3.0468 0.0861
mesh Rear right 1.6633 -1.9087 -0.02866
32
 3 Front left 5.8764 -4.2438 0.43785
Front right 2.5475 -2.0445 0.1716
D510 Coupler Bounce Miss 4
D511 Brick Bounce Miss 5 - 10
D512 Thermal block Bounce Miss 4
D513 10 N block Bounce Miss 5 - 20
D514 Coupler Straight drop 2 Retained Rear left 1.032 -1.3465 0
Rear right 0.9819 -1.4428 0.02866
Front left 4.6832 -1.8773 0
Front right 1.821 -1.1364 -0.0858
D601 Coupler Straight drop 2 Retained Rear left 1.1745 -1.199 0
Rear right 1.1523 -1.2975 0
Front left 4.5334 -1.9272 -0.08757
Front right 3.139 -0.7964 -0.0858
D602 Brick Slid 1,2 Retained Rear left 1.9902 -1.7052 0.0861
Rear right 1.8586 -2.0039 -0.02866
Front left 7.9484 -2.4864 0
Front right 8.1642 -2.9807 -0.0286
D603 Thermal block Slid off Miss
D605 5 L Paint tin Slid off 5,6 Retained Rear left 2.0148 -3.145 0
Rear right 1.6633 -2.3246 0.05732
Front left 5.9463 -3.44 0.93408
Front right 4.5688 -2.9108 -0.0572
D606 Scaffold board Pivot Miss 8
D609 1.2 m transom Roll 1,2,3, Retained Rear left 1.1303 -2.688 -0.3444
4,5 Rear right 1.6883 -3.2764 0.31526
Front left 8.8521 -2.072 0
Front right 5.9613 -2.4078 0.0572
D610 Coupler Bounce 3 Retained Rear left 0.6978 -0.8649 0.0287
Rear right 0.6362 -0.7064 0
Front left 2.6561 -2.3166 0
Front right 1.4112 -0.7498 0
D611 Brick Bounce Miss 6-7
D612 Thermal block Bounce Miss 2-4
D613 10 N Block Bounce 6 0-20 Rear left 0.6732 -0.6732 0
Rear right 0.9819 -1.0971 0
Front left 1.3381 -1.1234 0
Front right 2.3892 -1.318 0
D614 Thermal block Slid off 2,3 Retained Rear left 2.1376 -3.9854 0.1435
Rear right 1.6883 -3.3015 -0.17196
Front left 7.5839 -2.4364 0.23352
Front right 6.7111 -2.1377 -0.1144
D615 Scaffold board Pivot Miss 10
D616 Scaffold board Pivot Centre 3 Rear left 0.6241 -0.5258 0
pole Rear right 0.516 -0.9018 0
Front left 0.659 -0.6091 0
Front right 0.8663 -0.475 0
D6dry1 1.2 m transom Roll 4,5 Retained Rear left 2.0394 -3.8871 0.0574
Rear right 1.9338 -3.0309 -0.02866
33
 Front left 10.0204 -4.3137 0.17514
Front right 5.5049 -2.2029 0.0572
D6dry2 1.2 m transom Roll 5 2 Rear left 2.3981 -3.9608 -0.0574
Rear right 1.2725 -2.1041 0
Front left 9.5311 -3.8294 0.02919
Front right 2.9574 -2.4078 -0.0572
D6wet1 1.2 m transom Roll 6 4 Rear left 2.0639 -3.7642 0
Rear right 1.1523 -2.1292 0.08598
Front left 9.0418 -4.5334 0.46704
Front right 4.0006 -2.1843 0
D6wet2 1.2 m transom Roll 5,6 0 Rear left 2.5947 -3.8871 -0.0287
Rear right 1.1272 -1.6132 0
Front left 7.2644 -5.0227 -0.02919
Front right 2.8409 -2.501 0.0572
Further testing
Not
D001 1.2 m transom Straight drop required
D002 10 N block Slid off 3,4,5 Retained Rear left 1.7494 -2.5455 -0.0574
Rear right 1.7635 -2.7404 0
Front left 6.2659 -3.4849 -0.23352
Front right 4.7318 -2.9574 -0.0572
D003 1.2 m transom Guided 2 Retained
D004 1.2 m transom Guided 2,3 Retained Rear left 1.2236 -1.5578 0
Rear right 0.9569 -2.029 0
Front left 4.3137 -1.8523 0
Front right 3.8236 -1.3646 0
D005 Brick Bounce 3 Retained Rear left 0.7175 -1.032 -0.0287
Rear right 0.8066 -1.1472 0.05732
Front left 3.0506 -1.6077 -0.11676
Front right 2.7524 -0.7964 0.0572
D006 Thermal block Bounce 2 2 Rear left 1.6806 -2.2802 -0.2009
Rear right 1.1272 -2.1993 0.1433
Front left 6.2409 -3.0206 0
Front right 3.6606 -1.998 -0.0286
D007 10 N block End on 3,4 Retained Rear left 2.1327 -5.1598 0.3444
Rear right 2.4949 -5.2603 0
Front left 8.7023 -3.8045 17.1929
Front right 8.2993 -1.6813 -0.1144
D008 1.2 m transom Guided 2 Retained Rear left 1.2482 -1.7494 0.0287
Rear right 1.2474 -2.1492 -0.02866
Front left 4.094 -2.4614 -0.02919
Front right 5.3186 -0.9082 -0.0572
D009 1.2 m transom Guided 2 Retained Rear left 1.3661 -1.4398 0.0574
Rear right 1.1973 -2.0791 0
Front left 4.1689 -1.6077 0.02919
Front right 5.7983 -1.3413 0
D010 1.2 m transom Guided 2,3 Retained Rear left 1.1008 -1.489 -0.0861
Rear right 0.9318 -2.1292 0.02866
Front left 4.094 -1.7325 0

34
 Front right 3.4371 -1.5928 0
D120 10 N block End on Upper Retained Rear left 1.6561 -4.7028 -0.1148
double board 3,4,5 Rear right 1.6633 -3.9377 0.20062
Front left 9.7258 -2.9757 0
Front right 7.2095 -3.2741 -0.0572
D220 10 N block End on Upper Retained Rear left 1.4153 -5.2778 0.3444
double board 2,3,4 Rear right 1.6883 -4.6491 -0.20062
Lower Front left 11.678 -3.1654 23.0893
3 Front right 7.2327 -2.1144 -0.0858
D320 10 N block End on Upper 4 Rear left 2.0885 -4.7274 0.1722
double board 5 Rear right 1.6633 -4.0329 -0.17196
Lower Front left 8.8521 -3.5348 0.43785
5,6 Front right 6.1197 -2.7944 0.6292
D420 10 N block End on Upper Retained Rear left 1.5824 -4.5603 -0.6601
double board 3,4,5 Rear right 1.543 -4.0129 0.51588
Front left 10.285 -3.0955 -0.99246
Front right 8.7091 -2.8875 -0.3432
D520 10 N block End on Upper Retained Rear left 2.2556 -7.2238 -0.2009
double board 3,4 Rear right 2.8856 -5.2603 0.2866
Lower Front left 13.6751 -4.144 16.2588
3,4,5 Front right 8.3924 -3.1809 11.0968
D620 10 N block End on Upper Retained Rear left 3.6463 -5.4006 0
double board 1,2 Rear right 4.3786 -4.6491 0.05732
Lower Front left 21.1092 -2.3166 20.0535
1,2,3 Front right 10.3485 -1.8163 -0.429

Table 4 Results of configuration A testing

Test Item Drop method Impact Distance Sensor Positive Negative Coupler
board from fan location peak load peak load slip
(m) (kN) (kN) (mm)
Loads exceeding 6.25 kN SWL of coupler
A101 Coupler Straight drop 1,2 Retained Rear left 0.6978 -0.8157 0
Rear right 0.8066 -1.0771 0
Front left 1.4179 -1.0235 0
Front right 1.0712 -0.6334 0
A102 Brick Straight drop 2,3 Retained Rear left 1.6806 -2.2064 -0.0861
Rear right 2.034 -2.2244 0
Front left 2.5563 -1.6376 -0.2335
Front right 4.6619 -1.0712 -0.2288
A103 Thermal block Straight drop 1,2 Retained Rear left 2.2556 -2.9485 0
Rear right 2.3947 -3.3015 0
Front left 5.8265 -1.9771 -0.1168
Front right 5.7098 -2.3193 -0.1716
A104 10 N block Straight drop 6 0 Rear left 0.8157 -2.6635 -0.2009
Rear right 0.6362 -2.8155 -0.7451
Front left 3.6597 -0.704 -0.4670
Front right 4.4337 -1.2714 -0.3146
A105 5 L Paint tin Straight drop 3 Retained Rear left 1.6561 -2.5898 -0.0287
Rear right 1.3927 -2.3746 0.05732
35
 Front left 4.5334 -1.343 -0.1751
Front right 4.2987 -1.5229 -0.1144
A106 Scaffold board Pivot 2 6 Rear left 2.9288 -3.0222 0
Rear right 1.9588 -2.2995 0
Front left 9.1666 -2.072 -0.0292
Front right 4.2102 -2.3845 -0.0572
A107 Scaffold board End on 3 3 Rear left 2.5455 -4.0787 -0.0861
Rear right 2.1041 -3.7674 -0.3439
Front left 5.512 -1.8773 0.05838
Front right 6.3479 -2.8875 -0.143
A108 1.2 m transom End on 2 0 Rear left 2.7814 -2.8797 0
Rear right 1.2725 -2.4197 -0.0287
Front left 2.9257 -1.393 -0.0876
Front right 4.3452 -1.3879 -0.0858
A109 1.2 m transom Roll 4 Retained Rear left 3.0222 -4.8011 0
Rear right 3.2564 -3.1061 -0.0287
Front left 6.4107 -2.6312 0.14595
Front right 3.5023 -2.2075 0.0572
A110 Coupler Bounce 4,5 Retained Rear left 0.4816 -0.575 0
Rear right 0.3908 -0.6362 0
Front left 0.6341 -0.7339 -0.0292
Front right 0.9547 -0.6334 0
A111 Brick Slid off Miss 3 Rear left 0.6914 -0.8378 0.0287
Rear right 0.957 -1.3068 0
Front left 1.6511 -1.3537 0.05838
Front right 2.8268 -1.6549 0
A112 Thermal block Slid off 3,4 Retained Rear left 2.3735 -3.5284 -0.0287
Rear right 2.1292 -2.8856 -0.086
Front left 5.7017 -2.2667 -0.0584
Front right 4.3452 -1.9561 -0.0572
A113 10 N block Slid off 3,4,5 Retained Rear left 2.6635 -5.1107 0
Rear right 2.4247 -5.7212 -0.086
Front left 7.2395 -2.8059 0.20433
Front right 11.6199 -4.0937 0.2288
A201 Coupler Straight drop No Retained Rear left 0.863 -0.7116 0
damage Rear right 0.7769 -0.8284 0
Front left 1.528 -0.6256 0
Front right 1.3536 -0.5357 0
A202 Brick Straight drop 2,3 Retained Rear left 1.5578 -2.231 0
Rear right 1.5931 -1.8586 0
Front left 2.9507 -1.1733 -0.1168
Front right 4.0472 -1.7278 -0.1144
A203 Thermal block Straight drop 1,2 Retained Rear left 2.4227 -3.5284 0.0574
Rear right 2.1542 -4.2082 -0.0573
Front left 11.1388 -1.8573 0.05838
Front right 7.5727 -1.8396 -0.0286
A205 5 L Paint tin Straight drop 3,4 Rear left 1.2973 -2.5406 0
Rear right 1.4679 -2.2043 0
Front left 4.8979 -1.8273 0.08757
Front right 4.1357 -1.5276 0

36
A206 Scaffold board Pivot Miss 3
A207 Scaffold board End on 1,2 4 Rear left 1.9214 -2.9288 -0.0861
Rear right 2.034 -2.8606 -0.0287
Front left 8.8022 -2.2917 0.20433
Front right 4.8203 -2.3193 0.0572
A209 1.2 m transom Roll 3,4 Rear left 2.6849 -3.5984 0.0287
Rear right 1.559 -2.4593 -0.086
Front left 4.4558 -2.3279 -0.2043
Front right 2.9894 -1.6788 -0.1144
A210 Coupler Bounce 6 4 Rear left 0.9583 -0.8403 0
Rear right 0.6863 -0.7565 0
Front left 1.7325 -1.4629 0
Front right 1.0013 -0.8616 0
A211 Brick Slid off 6 3 Rear left 1.8231 -2.0885 0
Rear right 1.2474 -1.8336 0
Front left 3.2652 -2.2417 0.05838
Front right 2.2308 -1.7278 0
A212 Thermal block Slid off 6 4 Rear left 2.4718 -5.0861 0
Rear right 1.4178 -2.5199 -0.086
Front left 5.487 -3.7995 0.23352
Front right 3.9354 -2.6826 0.1144
A213 10 N block Slid off 6 2 Rear left 1.8969 -2.8305 0
Rear right 1.8136 -2.4448 -0.0287
Front left 5.8515 -3.8993 -0.0292
Front right 3.5023 -2.7757 0
A301 Coupler Straight drop No Retained Rear left 1.2728 -1.032 0
damage Rear right 1.1523 -1.2224 0
Front left 2.5363 -1.6825 -0.0584
Front right 2.4125 -1.1597 0
A302 Brick Straight drop 4,5 3 Rear left 2.1819 -2.3293 -0.0287
Rear right 1.4929 -2.4197 -0.0287
Front left 2.6112 -1.388 -0.0876
Front right 3.0924 -1.9561 -0.0286
A303 Thermal block Straight drop 1,2,3 Retained Rear left 2.4964 -4.3687 0
Rear right 2.7404 -2.8406 0
Front left 12.8213 -2.4165 -0.146
Front right 7.6426 -2.4078 -0.1716
A305 5 L Paint tin Straight drop 2,3 Rear left 1.8477 -3.2138 0.0287
Rear right 1.3176 -2.4247 -0.086
Front left 8.4876 -1.8723 0.08757
Front right 4.3406 -1.7046 0.1144
A306 Scaffold board Pivot Miss 7
A307 Scaffold board End on 2 0 Rear left 2.3047 -2.1573 0
Rear right 2.1542 -3.1562 0
Front left 3.8494 -1.3181 -0.0292
Front right 4.0006 -1.3879 -0.0286
A309 1.2 m transom Roll 5 Retained Rear left 2.7372 -4.9191 0.0574
Rear right 2.1542 -2.029 -0.0573
Front left 6.9948 -4.099 0.26271
Front right 3.3672 -2.8642 0.0572

37
A310 Thermal block Bounce Miss 3.8 - 20
A311 Brick Slid off 6 Retained Rear left 1.5332 -2.5947 -0.0287
Rear right 1.1723 -1.8085 0
Front left 3.8993 -2.1968 0
Front right 2.5242 -1.5229 -0.0572
A312 Thermal block Slid off No 2 Rear left 1.5578 -2.8797 0
damage Hit centre Rear right 2.1793 -1.7384 -0.172
pole only Front left 2.756 -1.6576 -0.0292
Front right 2.1377 -1.318 -0.0286
A313 10 N block Slid off 6 0 Rear left 1.3219 -1.8969 0
Rear right 1.0771 -3.2764 0.05732
Front left 3.465 -1.8523 0.14595
Front right 3.4138 -1.9561 0.2002
A401 Coupler Straight drop 2 Retained Rear left 2.0394 -1.7249 0
Rear right 1.3927 -1.5631 -0.0287
Front left 2.5613 -1.3381 0
Front right 2.161 -1.1364 -0.0286
A402 Brick Straight drop 3,4 Retained Rear left 2.0639 -3.1205 0
Rear right 1.2224 -2.57 0
Front left 3.9992 -1.6576 -0.5838
Front right 2.6826 -1.5928 -0.0286
A403 Thermal block Straight drop 1,2 Retained Rear left 3.2138 -4.5603 0
Rear right 2.8155 -3.1311 -0.1146
Front left 10.6545 -2.4864 -0.2043
Front right 6.0265 -2.0911 -0.143
A405 5 L Paint tin Straight drop 3,4 Retained Rear left 2.0394 -3.2138 -0.0287
Rear right 1.3927 -3.6471 -0.0287
Front left 7.7038 -3.7795 0
Front right 4.2754 -1.9141 0
A406 Scaffold board Pivot Retained Rear left 2.806 -2.8797 0.0287
Brickguard Rear right 1.6132 -4.083 -0.0287
damaged Front left 2.9757 -2.9008 0.17514
Front right 8.1223 -2.0678 0.1144
A409 1.2 m transom Roll 3,4 0 Rear left 1.5136 -3.5529 -0.0861
Rear right 1.2224 -2.9107 0.1433
Front left 4.6582 -1.7075 -0.4379
Front right 4.5967 -1.8629 -0.286
A410 Coupler Bounce Miss 2
A411 Brick Bounce Miss 0-7
A412 Thermal block Slid off 5,6 2 Rear left 2.1819 -3.9608 -0.0287
Rear right 1.9338 -2.4197 0
Front left 5.2174 -3.9492 -0.0292
Front right 4.3685 -2.6593 -0.1144
A413 10 N block Slid off 6 0-4 Rear left 2.1082 -4.1524 0.0861
Rear right 2.1542 -3.6672 -0.2579
Front left 5.1924 -2.3166 0.5838
Front right 4.7085 -2.8409 0.7722
A414 Brick Slid off 6 2.3 Rear left 1.5136 -2.3293 0.0574
Rear right 1.6633 -2.5951 -0.086
Front left 3.0256 -2.2168 0.08757
Front right 2.0259 -1.8396 0.0572
38
A501 Coupler Straight drop 2 Retained Rear left 1.1008 -1.5824 -0.0287
Rear right 0.7364 -1.2975 0.05732
Front left 4.7031 -0.9985 0
Front right 1.8862 -0.7731 -0.0572
A502 Brick Straight drop 3 0 Rear left 1.3907 -1.8231 0
Rear right 1.1272 -1.8085 0
Front left 2.2417 -1.6576 -0.1751
Front right 2.1377 -1.1131 -0.1144
A503 Thermal block Straight drop 4 0 Rear left 2.1131 -4.3687 -0.1148
Some over Rear right 2.1542 -3.2263 0
brickguard Front left 7.7287 -3.7046 -0.1168
Front right 5.2301 -3.0691 -0.3718
A505 5 L Paint tin Straight drop 1 Rear left 4.8257 -3.9608 0.0287
Rear right 3.9878 -3.7423 -0.0573
Front left 8.6324 -2.0969 -0.0584
Front right 7.0045 -1.7278 0.0572
A506 Scaffold board Pivot Miss 4.2
A511 Brick Slid off Miss 3
A512 Thermal block Slid off 4,5,6 Retained Rear left 2.3735 -4.3441 0
Rear right 2.1292 -2.3947 0
Front left 8.5575 -4.1689 0
Front right 4.3219 -2.4777 0
A513 10 N block Slid off 4,5,6 0 Rear left 2.231 -5.5186 0
Rear right 3.8425 -4.4287 -0.086
Front left 7.2644 -2.2917 -0.146
Front right 6.2081 -2.7944 -0.2002
A601 Coupler Straight drop 1 Retained Rear left 1.774 -1.2973 0
Rear right 1.4178 -1.3677 0
Front left 4.6582 -1.2432 0
Front right 2.0492 -1.2249 0
A605 5 L Paint tin Straight drop 3,4 Rear left 2.231 -3.8871 0.0287
Rear right 1.7134 -2.6903 0
Front left 7.6039 -2.4614 0.08757
Front right 4.6154 -2.1144 0.0572
A606 Scaffold board Pivot Miss 15 - 25
A612 Thermal block Slid off 6 7 Rear left 1.6069 -3.3858 0.0287
Rear right 1.8386 -1.6883 0
Front left 5.487 -2.1219 0.17514
Front right 2.7757 -1.8396 -0.0286
A613 10 N block Slid off 1,2 0 Rear left 5.1353 -5.8085 0.0861
Rear right 3.6471 -3.0309 -0.172
Front left 9.581 -1.8523 -0.2627
Front right 8.3458 -1.6114 -0.1716
A6dry2 1.2 m transom Rolled off 1 end Rear left 1.489 -2.0394 0
on 6 Rear right 1.1272 -1.3677 0.05732
Front left 4.5833 -2.9257 0
Front right 2.0492 -1.5881 0

39
 8 GLOSSARY

Bay Space defined on a scaffold face between two adjacent

standards
Bay Length The horizontal distance between the standards forming either
side of a bay
Brick Guard Mesh used to protect working platform, fitted between
toeboard and handrail
Coupler Component used to fix scaffold tubes together
Fan Pole The poles used to form the fan platform, placed perpendicular
to the building and often inclined towards the scaffold.
Handrail A horizontal tube fixed to the structure at waist height for
protection of personnel
Ledger Horizontal tube fixed parallel to the face of the building
Ledger Bracing Diagonal bracing between standards in the perpendicular plane
to the building
Lift The horizontal levels of a scaffold
Lift height The vertical height between lifts
Longitudinal Diagonal bracing fixed between standards generally in the
bracing longer plane of the scaffold
Scaffold A temporary structure allowing access and working
Scaffold Fan Structure attached to the perimeter of a scaffold to prevent
objects that may accidentally fall from structure causing
damage or injury to property or personnel on the ground
Scaffold Board Softwood boards used to construct working platforms,
toeboards and fans
Standard A vertical tube
SWL Safe working load
Toeboard Board fixed vertically to outer edge of working platform for
protection of personnel or from falling objects
Transom Horizontal tube perpendicular to building face
Working Platform Deck from which personnel work

40