Guide to Working Platforms: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Guide to Working Platforms (view source)

Revision as of 15:15, 28 September 2022

36,995 bytes added ,  15:15, 28 September 2022
added page content
(The importance of the stability of large and tall equipment when working on construction projects is undeniable. As the gruesome image below shows, the consequences of unstable platforms can be devastating.)
 
(added page content)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
The importance of the stability of large and tall equipment when working on construction projects is undeniable. As the gruesome image below shows, the consequences of unstable platforms can be devastating.


In addition to the physical consequences, a rig toppling will certainly have a financial impact, it may lead to a delay to the project, have reputational ramifications and lead to civil claims or even criminal prosecution. A major cause of rig instability is a poor site surface or working platform. This may be due to a lack of design, poor quality installation, or a lack of maintenance or inspection. Given the consequences of a rig falling over, most would agree that each of these aspects should be carried out thoroughly and by competent people, yet on many sites, in many countries, this is still not done.
Nevertheless, there are examples of good practice that if shared and followed would do much to improve the quality of working platforms, not just for geotechnical equipment, but for all users of the site surface. However, because of the fragmented nature of the construction industry and its regional approach, it is not easy to effect a change for the better.
Therefore, this guide is not intended to prescribe or dictate the way in which working platforms should be managed, but rather pools the experiences from across the membership of the European Federation of Foundation Contractors (EFFC) and Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) to increase awareness of what has been achieved.
Whilst foundations contractors naturally focus on piling rigs and other geotechnical equipment, a working platform is used by everyone that accesses site. So the considerations highlighted in this document apply equally to cranes, concrete pumps, mobile access platforms, concrete trucks, delivery vehicles and even personnel. A properly designed and installed working platform benefits all and will enhance the efficient working of a site as well as ensuring a safe environment.
It is hoped that the document will provide a stimulus for how this important aspect of how we work is tackled by our industry and outline some possible tools for implementation. Fundamentally, we all wish to make photographs like ''Figure 1'' a thing of the past.
== Purpose and Scope ==
On a typical construction site, the provision of a safe surface to work on involves and affects a number of the contracting parties, and as a consequence, the organisation of its design, installation and maintenance can be complex. As it concerns money and liability it is often a contentious issue, but nonetheless one that needs to be addressed.
=== The parties that may get involved in the provision of a working platform are: ===
==== The client. ====
Some clients such as a national railway authority may have specifications that need to be met. Some may include an item in their bill of quantities for the provision of a working platform, whilst other clients will simply expect the general contractor1 to have included for it in the price.
==== The principal designer. ====
In some jurisdictions the designer of the scheme may have an over-arching safety co-ordination role. Regardless of whether there is this legal responsibility, the choice of foundation type and size will be a determining factor in deciding what equipment is necessary to install the works, and hence the requirements of the working platform.
==== The general contractor. ====
In accordance with the European ‘Construction Sites’ Directive [''Appendix 1''] the general contractor is likely to be the coordinator for safety and health matters in the project execution stage. This extends to the temporary works on the site and hence the working platform.
==== The specialist geotechnical contractor. ====
Again, under EU law, the geotechnical contractor will be responsible for the health and safety of their employees and this will extend to the provision of a safe place of work.
==== The working platform designer. ====
If it is not the principal designer, then a separate organisation or person may carry out the design for the platform (which is a part of the temporary works).
==== The working platform installer (earthworks contractor). ====
This is usually a subcontractor to the general contractor.
==== The platform tester. ====
In some cases, the platform might be tested to demonstrate its suitability. This might be done by an independent testing company.
==== The platform maintainer. ====
Once the platform is in use it is likely that it will need some maintenance. This would be either because it is heavily trafficked or perhaps it might have deteriorated because of weather conditions.
So, in summary, the provision of something that would seem to be basic and straightforward - namely a platform for the site to use and work from, actually becomes a difficult thing to arrange and look after. Several steps are necessary to make sure that the whole process can be properly executed.
This document takes each step in turn and describes what good practice is, with reference to documents and resources that have been made available through the EFFC and DFI.
In compiling this information responses have been collated from foundation contractors from; France, United Kingdom, the Czech Republic, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Hungary, Italy and Sweden, USA and Canada.
The guide is set out in a chronological manner; that is it starts with the calculation of rig loads and platform design and then moves through installation and testing to maintenance. Contractual responsibility is covered, as is enforcement, albeit this can be a contentious subject. Finally some suggestions for training and improving general awareness are made.
Unsurprisingly different countries are at different levels of maturity, but the sequential process or the journey in ''Figure 2'' that needs to followed is broadly the same wherever you are. It is worth noting that each and every step should be properly considered and implemented prior to the next. Rushing the process or missing steps out is unlikely to be successful.
[[File:Fig2.2.png|alt=Steps in Implementing Effective Working Platforms|none|thumb|463x463px|FIGURE 2. Steps in Implementing Effective Working Platforms]]
More and more countries are adopting this approach and it is not just in Europe. Recently (November 2018) the main geotechnical federations in the U.S. (comprising the ADSC-IAFD (International Association of Foundation Drilling), the DFI (Deep Foundations Institute) and the PDCA (Pile Driving Contracts Association)) endorsed such a process [''Appendix 2''].
Similarly, Canadian regulations are addressing the issue head-on [''Appendix 15'']
== Tracked Plant Loading ==
It is necessary to provide the designer with loadings (amongst other things) so that the thickness of the platform may be determined. For tracked equipment this is not just the “dead-weight” of the machine spread over the contact or surface area of the tracks.
Since 2014 and the introduction of EN16228: Drilling and Foundation Equipment - Safety, the rig and equipment manufacturers should provide rig bearing pressures with all new equipment. However, older rigs may not have this information or modifications may mean that the working bearing pressures are changed.
Calculating the rig bearing pressure can be complex, as the way in which the rig is operated will have an impact upon the loading pattern. It is likely that different load cases will apply as the ancillary equipment carried by the machines (such as an auger or a hammer) will vary from time to time, even possibly on the same project. Consequently, there are a number of variables which need to be modelled if a precise assessment of rig bearing pressure is to be made.
The Federation of Piling Specialists (FPS) in the UK has developed a method of calculating track bearing pressures which is freely available [Appendix 3]. This is an excel spreadsheet into which the user can input the particular rig characteristics to derive the bearing pressure. From time to time the FPS also offers training in the use of the tool.
[[File:Fig3.png|alt=Other Users of the Platform|none|thumb|FIGURE 3. Other Users of the Platform]]
Another simple estimate especially useful for older equipment is:
[[File:Tracking.png|alt=tracking|none|thumb|1. Tracking]]
In the equation the entire load is on one track, to estimate the effect of eccentricity. The Track Length is the full flat length in contact with the ground surface. The result is double the average pressure.
[[File:Drilling.png|alt=drilling|none|thumb|2. Drilling]]
Again, all the load is on one track to estimate the effect of eccentricity. The Track Length is the full flat length in contact with ground surface.
However, there are ways of defining more generic rig bearing pressures. For example, the Association Belge des Entrepreneurs de Fondation (ABEF) simply requests a 25MPa pressure resistance [''Appendix 4''] whilst the Austrian Research Association for Roads, Railways and Transport (FSV) has compiled a list of loading details for typical generic geotechnical equipment ranging from piling rigs, to diaphragm walls and from micro-piling to ground anchoring [''Appendix 5'']. The Ontario regulations require an engineering analysis when any piece of equipment exerts a pressure of 200 kPa under its ties, tracks or outriggers.
One thing to be wary of is changes in rig types or rig configurations after the piling or working platform has been installed. This could arise in the event that a rig has to be replaced, perhaps in the case of a plant breakdown, or if the diameter or depth of the foundation changes for some reason. In these cases the new bearing pressure must be checked to ensure that the working platform is still adequate for the new loading. When thinking about rig loading it is also useful to consider the other users of the platform. For example, a fully loaded ready mix concrete truck or tipper truck carrying spoil may well exert a higher bearing pressure than the rigs.
== Working Platform Design ==
In the EU, the design of the platform is a temporary works consideration and hence its co-ordination falls under the requirements of the EU Directive 92/57/EEC 1992; the ‘Construction Sites Directive’. In this context, co-ordination means arranging the design and ensuring that the requirements of that design are met on the site. Ordinarily, these obligations fall to the general contractor.
In the US, whilst the design of the platform is not yet covered by a legal framework or standard, the OSHA Construction Standard Subpart R, CFR 1926.752 assigns the responsibility for, “A firm, properly graded, drained area, readily accessible to the work with adequate space for the safe storage of materials and the safe operation of the erector’s equipment” to the “controlling entity”.
The design of the platform should be carried out by a competent geotechnical engineer and they may use any form of analysis they deem appropriate and there are some established methods ranging from a simple spread footing calculation based on Terzaghi’s principles to finite element analyses.
The design brief should be developed as required for any other temporary works design, but in particular the following information should be supplied:
* Plant data sheets (dimensions, configurations, weights etc.);
* Track ground bearing pressures, outrigger or mast foot loads;
* Ground investigation report;
* Plan of the working platform and haul roads;
* Topographical survey;
* Existing services survey (above and below ground);
* Existing structures survey (below ground chambers, retaining walls, etc.);
* Constraints on reduced levels (formation, top of platform);
* Proposed compaction plant / method;
* Period of use (duration);
* Any information on existing shallow mining activities or other potential voids (i.e. chalk or salt dissolution, etc.);
* General construction traffic and their payloads including type of lorries, wagons, etc.
* Any works that may involve excavating through the platform and the planned method of reinstatement.
The most commonly used form of analysis is the Building Research Establishment’s (BRE) good practice guide BR 470. [''Appendix 7'']. This guide was published in June 2004 with the principal objective of improving safety by promoting the implementation of minimum design, installation and maintenance standards. In the guide the following limits are suggested:
* for unreinforced platforms the minimum platform thickness should be the lesser of 300mm [1ft] or half the track width; the maximum thickness is 1.5x track width;
* for reinforced platforms the minimum platform thickness should be 300mm [1ft]; the maximum thickness is the track width, and;
* the minimum cover over a geosynthetic reinforcement should be 300mm [1ft].
However, some criticise the guide as being overly conservative and there are concerns about the way in which the effect of geosynthetic reinforcement is evaluated. In these situations the manufacturers of geosynthetic products may be able to offer a cost-effective design, but it is important to identify where responsibility lies for the design, placement and operation of the platform. Indeed, Tensar have developed their own method of calculating the thickness of a platform, the “T Method”. Details of this are included in ''Appendix 20'', and a link to their app is in the references.
The French federation (SOFFONS) has published a method [''Appendix 6''] and this includes an easy-to-use excel spreadsheet. This document broadly follows the BRE document but with further details regarding the bearing capacity assessment based on pressuremeter tests and cone penetration tests which are more common in France.
More recently, the UK’s Institution of Civil Engineers (Temporary Works Forum) has been working on an improvement to the methods mentioned above and has issued a Guide to Good Practice TWf2019: 02 [''Appendix 8'']. This would appear to give more economical results than BR470, and suggests some other methods of analysis, which is to be welcomed; a competent designer could adopt its recommendations should they so decide.
Regardless of the method used, someone has to carry out the design of the working platform. In some jurisdictions this is a challenge as the principal geotechnical engineer may be employed by the client, and will be conflicted in some way. Other consultants may be unwilling to take on the design as frankly the task is too small to be commercially worthwhile. Where this is the case, it may fall to the geotechnical specialists to develop this service in-house. This can then be offered to the project, with an appropriate fee.
In some markets where the practice has been common place for a longer time, a market for smaller specialist geotechnical designers has developed and these organisations regularly design platforms, usually for the general contractors. The cost of the working platform is not insignificant and so a competitive design is a distinct advantage.
== Installation and Testing ==
Often the platform is installed by another contractor who is not the geotechnical specialist nor the general contractor. Indeed, the platform is likely to have been laid well before the geotechnical specialist even comes to site. Therefore, knowing whether the platform has been installed in accordance with the design becomes more difficult. Consideration needs to be given to how this assurance can be realised.
The UK federation (FPS) has the Working Platform Certificate [''Appendix 9''] which is widely used in the industry. This has a section (Part 2) which is to be signed by the general contractor as a verification that the platform has been installed in accordance with the design. The Dutch federation (NVAF) has a similar document [''Appendix 10'']. Also see the Ontario certificate [''Appendix 15'']. In reality the signing of a piece of paper can only go so far in validating the quality of the entire platform, but this procedure focusses people’s minds and makes everyone understand their obligations.
In order to obtain a higher level of assurance, testing could be specified. Presently the most common test is the Plate Load Test shown in ''Figure 4''. Whilst this is easy to conduct some caution is necessary as the plate loading test equipment is normally not representative of the loaded area, particularly in the case of rig tracks. It is possible that a test using the normal plate size (300 to 450mm [1 - 1.5ft] diameter), applied to the surface of a working platform, will have little influence on the sub-grade. However, research is currently being carried out on this particular subject which may provide some comfort on this point. The Dutch federation reports using a “penetrologger”, which may provide an alternative.
[[File:Fig4.png|alt=Plate Load Test Equipment|none|thumb|FIGURE 4. Plate Load Test Equipment]]
Proofrolling in combination with other appropriate verification techniques (such as the previously mentioned plate load test) could be considered to provide a higher level of assurance. A major cause of rig toppling is a lack of demarcation and the rig is inadvertently tracked to close to, or even off the edge of the platform. It is good practice that the working platform extends at least 2m [6.5ft] beyond the built footprint of the site to ensure sufficient safe working area.
== Inspection and Maintenance ==
Once the platform has been installed, it has to be maintained. Often the piling operation itself will result in the platform deteriorating and the excavation of obstructions and services can lead to soft spots. Several of the rig overturns that have been reported by the members of the EFFC and DFI were caused by a lack of maintenance rather than a poorly designed or constructed platform.
Systems should be in place to ensure that monitoring of the platform takes place regularly and this should involve a visual assessment of the performance of the platform and operating plant. It is a moot point as to who should carry out this inspection, although whoever does carry it out needs to be competent to do so. There are a number of proforma available for this purpose [''Appendix 9''] for example.
Drainage is key. Water and slurry that is allowed to build up on the surface can hide hazards such as recently constructed piles or uneven ground, and a poorly drained platform will deteriorate quickly.
A common cause for instability is where the platform has had to be excavated for some reason and then not reinstated properly. Perhaps an obstruction has had to be removed, or a service relocated. In these situations it is essential that reinstatement is done to the original design standard, including any geosynthetic reinforcement. It is good practice to include a sign off for this work, ideally on the inspection log.
On some sites platforms are now constructed using stabilised materials. These comprise hydraulically bound materials (HBM), including cement bound materials (CBM). It should be noted that HBM materials are likely to have very low permeability and hence drainage design is critical, to ensure that the platform remains suitable for use and does not become waterlogged, potentially creating plant instability and hazards to operatives. A slope or a fall can be constructed into the platform by means of grading during final compaction and large areas may require falls to several intermediate drains to keep the surface free from standing water.
In colder climates winter working needs consideration and in terms of stability particularly during thawing conditions. During prolonged periods below zero degrees the platform is likely to be solid and stable, but may become very soft as temperatures rise. This thawing of the platform is also likely to be uneven, so one track of a machine may be on solid frozen ground, whilst the other is on soft thawed soil. In terms of rig stability this is the arguably the worst case scenario and needs to be designed for.
Whilst this document focusses rightly on rig stability, the platform must also be used by pedestrians. Due consideration should be given to providing a surface that can be easily walked upon without trip hazards (such as protruding reinforcement or wire often associated with demolition waste). Drainage should be adequate to keep the surface free from surface water that would make traversing it by foot dangerous. Holes in the platform should be backfilled and not allowed to fill up with water.
== Responsibility ==
Any working platform scheme is unlikely to be successful if it creates a responsibility that otherwise did not exist. We must use the contractual relationships and the legal frameworks that are already in place to increase the understanding of where the existing obligations of the various parties to a project already lie. This is about seeking clarity on the relationships between the parties and fundamentally making sure individuals know what their obligations are, rather than changing them.
Some observers make the argument that their insurers would be reluctant to support a working platform scheme. General contractors suspect that their liability is increased in some way and designers are concerned about professional indemnity cover. In fact the insurance community is fully supportive of improving working platforms as they collectively see it as a way of preventing loss. As the insurers often re-insure or layer insurance between them, at some point in time they all suffer, so the primary objective is to avoid the loss from occurring in the first place, regardless of who is initially liable. This is discussed in a document by HSB Engineering [''Appendix 11''].
Contractual arrangements should ensure that the platform is properly designed, installed, maintained and, as necessary, repaired throughout its working life. The respective roles of the various parties should be clearly understood and the responsibilities
and liabilities of all parties should be defined in the relevant contract. This should start with the tender documents and several federations have useful standard terms and conditions that incorporate working platform requirements. The NVAF’s version is appended [''Appendix 12''] as is OSHA clarification [''Appendix 14''].
But, in terms of influencing the debate around which party is responsible for what, it is interesting to consider their relative positions:
=== The client ===
Under general health and safety law and in particular the European ‘Construction Sites’ Directive [Appendix 1] the client has certain obligations with regards to safety co-ordination for his project. Moreover, most clients would be very keen to avoid any bad publicity that an over-turned rig could result in, quite apart from any safety concerns. In this regard, larger corporate and governmental clients are the most readily persuaded that they need to make provisions in their contracts for proper working platforms. Some however, will consider that health and safety, particularly for the temporary works is a matter solely for the contractors.
=== The general contractor ===
The general contractor is likely to be the “controlling entity” in terms of health and safety and under EU as well as US law this is ordinarily the coordinator for safety and health matters during the project. The European ‘Construction Sites’ directive requires them to, at the execution stage, “coordinate implementation of the general principles of prevention and safety…when technical aspects are being decided, in order to plan the various items or stages of work which are to take place simultaneously or in succession”. Also the coordinator shall, “coordinate implementation of the relevant provisions in order to ensure that employers apply the principles referred to [selected text below] in a consistent manner:
# ''keeping the construction site in good order and in a satisfactory state of cleanliness;''
# ''choosing the location of workstations bearing in mind how access to these workplaces is obtained, and determining routes or areas for the passage and movement and equipment..;''
# ''technical maintenance, pre-commissioning checks and regular checks on installations and equipment with a view to correcting any faults which might affect the safety and health of workers;''
# ''the demarcation and laying-out of areas for the storage of various materials, in particular where dangerous materials or substances are concerned;''
# ''the storage and disposal or removal of waste and debris...”''
Thus it is clear that the general contractors already have a legal obligation both in the application of the European ‘Construction Sites’ Directive and also more generally in other health and safety legislation. In the US, there are several ANSI Standards that also set out similar responsibilities. The main concern is that not all general contractors understand this. Hence any platform scheme has to be designed not to impose additional obligations on the parties, but rather to ensure that everyone is clear on what the legal duties already are.
The FPS Working Platform Certificate sets out to do just this [''Appendix 9'']. The first section, Part 1, requests the name of the individual that has carried out a design of the platform. It does not ask for the design, nor even the installation criteria. This is done, so that liability for checking is not inadvertently passed down to other parties to the contract (such as the specialist geotechnical contractor). The act of asking for a name, is poignant as this is not a “tick-box” exercise; few people would write a name on the form unless they were satisfied that they had carried out the design and were competent to do so. This is not imposing any additional liability on the general contractor, no signature is required, it merely confirms that a temporary works design has been done and who completed it.
Part 2 also simply confirms that the general contractor has carried out their coordination role properly. It does not demand that the general contractor has to directly himself design, install, maintain, inspect or repair the platform, all of these duties may and often are subcontracted. But, it is the responsibility of the general contractor, the coordinator, to make sure that someone is fulfilling these roles.
=== The geotechnical specialist ===
The geotechnical specialist has a duty to supply the correct loading and to ensure that the loading patterns remain as originally intended. If rig changes are made then it is important that the platform design is reassessed. It is imperative that the right information is passed to the platform designer.
There is also a duty of care of the geotechnical contractor to flag-up any unsafe conditions that are identified either before or during the works. If there is a defect in the platform that is manifest, then the geotechnical specialist cannot simply rely on the platform certificate and assume that everything is fine with the working surface. Typical obligations of the specialist site management might include:
* Daily visual inspection of the working platform;
* Daily maintenance of the platform (housekeeping, ground levelling, keeping the platform as dry as possible;
* Briefing site personnel on the risks related with unsafe working platforms;
* Ensuring exclusion zones are maintained around rigs and cranes and reducing the number of people required to work around these machines;
* Carrying out risk assessments in the case of new rigs arriving on site or the presence of additional machines, and ultimately;
* Stopping the work if the working conditions are unsafe. Everyone on the site should have the authority to stop the work. From analyses of several years’ of rig overturns, we have learned that in several cases someone on the site knew that something was wrong, but they continued and took the risk nevertheless.
All of these relationships need to be understood in order to properly embed a working platform scheme in the industry. Getting the responsibilities clear and agreeing which party takes on which role is critical to success. Ignoring the problem and hoping for the best is not the answer.
Nevertheless, some may still be tempted to take shortcuts. It is hoped that by making sure the parties truly understand the risks, then this temptation can be avoided. Regardless, working platforms can represent a significant cost and hence, like any other part of the construction process, need to be engineered with value in mind. Economic designs that are not too conservative will help and so proficient platform designers are in demand. Geotechnical specialists also have their part to play. Compromises between the weight, size and stability of the rig and the installation process are now part of the value judgement, as well as the economy of the foundation solution itself.
== Enforcement ==
To give any scheme “teeth”, consideration should be given to enforcement measures. Where platform initiatives have been most successful there are ramifications for not following best practice.
The first level is to decide at a company level what stance is to be taken. In some jurisdictions it may be possible to be insistent that every site has to have a platform certificate before the rig is even erected or rigged up. In other regions this may be more difficult to enforce. For interest, Keller’s Group policy is attached in [''Appendix 23 and 24'']''.''
It may be possible to persuade some client bodies to implement a scheme that applies to their sites or across a country. The Austrian Transport Guide [''Appendix 5''] is a good example of this.
Could the national federations do more to enforce a standard working platform approach? In the UK (back in 2004) the members of the FPS resolved that, ''“work shall not commence until the Working Platform Certificate, properly completed, is passed to an authorised person representing the Member Company”''. In order to check compliance, the members are visited by an independent auditor that checks that certificates are in place on current sites and may ask to see historical paperwork for completed sites (as part of a wider three year membership audit programme).
Once this more systematic approach to providing working platforms is accepted by the industry, it becomes best practice and arguably this allows it to pass into law. Clearly, this is a powerful level of enforcement and becomes a good argument for the adherence to a scheme. Indeed in the UK there have been several prosecutions of general contractors (and indeed geotechnical specialists) relating to poor standards of working platform provision, where the requirements of the FPS Working Platform Certificate scheme were cited.
== Training and Awareness ==
Finally, to assist all the members of the EFFC, and DFI there is already a plethora of training material that may be used, adapted or copied, such as:
* Site posters to deliver the message to the workforce, as in Figure 5/6/7.
* Material for site briefings and tool box talks.
* Driver and Banksman (Operator and Oiler) training.
* Project Manager training
* Webinars on how to use the BRE calculator
As mentioned in the design section there may be some Federations that are willing to support others with designer training.
The Polish federation (PZWFS) produced an excellent video showing the effects of an over turned rig and the importance of a proper working platform. This has been widely shared and a link to the video is included in Appendix 13. The German federation has also produced a comprehensive guide “Stopp Maschinen Umstürze”, a link to which is found at Appendix 21.
[[File:Fig5.png|alt=FIGURE 5. Keller Poster Campaign|none|thumb|FIGURE 5. Keller Poster Campaign]]
[[File:Fig6.png|alt=FIGURE 6. ADSC Poster Campaign|none|thumb|FIGURE 6. ADSC Poster Campaign]]
[[File:Fig7.png|alt=FIGURE 7. PFSF Poster Campaign|none|thumb|FIGURE 7. PFSF Poster Campaign]]
== Summary ==
The provision of a proper working platform is essential to the safe (and often efficient) execution of geotechnical works. However, as this impacts upon a number of stakeholders in a project it is not always easy to ensure and there are sometimes conflicts of interest, not least led by the cost implications.
However, experience from around the world shows it is possible to influence the main players and bring the construction industry up to standard. In order to move forwards, a number of steps need to be taken, sequentially. Skipping a step will cause inertia and result in conflict later on. These are:
=== Raise Awareness ===
* Working with the national federation, identify the magnitude of the problem. If possible obtain statistics as to the number of rig over-turns per year in the market and also case studies. Photographs are always useful.
* Present to audiences comprising general contractors, large clients and governmental bodies.
* Involve unions and enforcement authorities.
* Impress upon those involved that the risk of rigs overturning due to poor working platforms can be mitigated almost entirely with the right scheme and everyone’s commitment.
=== Establish the Rig Loading Parameters ===
* Evaluate the sources of rig loading. What will be done where the manufacturers’ loading details are not available?
* The FPS (UK federation) Spreadsheet method could be adopted, or;
* Consider specifying a range of generic rig loading as promoted in the Austrian FSV guidance, or;
* Alternatively, a blanket loading requirement may be a good starting point, see the ABEF (Belgian federation) requirements.
=== Design the Working Platform ===
* Identify the current methods of design and promote a discussion amongst designers as to how to produce economic designs.
* If needed, create a market for a platform design service, supplied by the established consultants or perhaps independent geotechnical professionals;
* Otherwise, it may be necessary to develop internal competence, but this could be income generating.
* Devise a system whereby the “safety co-ordinator” (usually the general contractor) confirms that the design has been done.
* Implement Checks on the Platform Installation
* Develop a sign-off sheet to validate that the platform has been installed in accordance with the design.
* Produce guidance that covers the other requirements of the platform, such as it should be free draining, suitable for
* pedestrians, have maximum slope angles and have demarcation.
* Decide on testing requirements, whether this is necessary and if so what tests should be employed.
=== Inspect the Working Platform ===
* Identify who shall inspect the platform and how frequently.
* Establish a means of recording the inspection and how repairs to the platform are managed.
=== Enforce the Process ===
* Decide upon your own company’s policy.
* Persuade the federation to take a stance and come up with sanctions.
* Persuade general contractors or general contractor organisations to adopt the procedures.
* Encourage enforcement agencies to follow best practice and prosecute those who do not comply.
* Write working platform requirements into local specifications and codes.
=== Train and Promote ===
* Train your workforce and set out your expectations.
* Work with the federation to produce industry wide training material.
* Identify specific training needs outside your immediate influence, such as training on platform design methods.
* Copy the existing training material that exists!
== Route Forward ==
This guide is a compilation of current thinking in the our industry, but further work is required. For example, we need to develop other options for testing other than the plate load test, which may lead to academic research. Similarly, we could investigate the actual bearing pressures under the rigs during operation and, on a connected matter, we will need to gauge our response to those modern rigs that give the driver real-time feedback on the rig bearing pressures. It is therefore envisaged that this document will be updated to include these developments.
It is acknowledged that improving the situation is difficult and it takes time and persistence. But the ultimate objective in reducing the number of rigs that topple over is a worthwhile and important one. The steps that are detailed provide a road map but to make them effective still needs will and determination to drive the necessary changes.
However, change is possible and some jurisdictions have managed to implement comprehensive schemes and systems that have had a huge impact in improving the standard of working platforms. To support this statement and to provide some final encouragement, if it were needed, some photographs of good practice are included in [Appendix 25].
Retrieved from "https://dfi-library.org/index.php/Special:MobileDiff/229"

Navigation menu