Suspended Scaffold vs WEB Deck: Under deck suspended platform systems compared

Scaffold is without a doubt an excellent product which when applied to the correct set of circumstances provides a fast and cost effective solution. What we have done is to take a look at the circumstances where we see that scaffold does not provide a best fit access solution and design a better solution, the WEB Deck. If you are looking at a ground based access solution where you have no issue with access to the ground level, then scaffold fulfills its purpose. However, when you enter the work sites where you cannot use or obstruct the ground level then hanging scaffold is erected with a much higher time to install and therefore cost. This is one of the sets of circumstances that scaffold metaphorically falls down and where the WEB Deck provides a faster and therefore cheaper temporary work platform.

Scaffolding under bridges is a classic scenario where time and costs increase dramatically. The typical work scenarios include hanging scaffold under bridges because of water, roads, rail or rough ground underneath. In these circumstances to hang scaffold off the bridge is very time consuming compared to a ground based scaffold system.

Another scenario where hanging scaffold under a bridge hits problems is where the bridge is wide. A bridge requiring an under deck access platform which has more than 2 lanes, then the time and costs increase dramatically. Under these circumstances, there is no exponential increase in cost for the WEB deck because the width of the bridge does not alter the complexity and therefore cost of the install.

In order to illustrate this point take a look at the table below which outlines a bridge under deck are of 30m x 10m. The numbers are estimates and will vary from project to project, but they offer a good comparison of the products in this work area application:

WEB BENEFITS 30m x 10mwork area Scaffold1.5 kN/m2 WEB Deck1.5 kN/m2
•40% time savings min.
•30% cost savings min.
Total time (rig & de-rig) man days 120 50
•8 x Lighter
Hung Weight (tonnes) 42t 5.1t
•75% less volume
Storage volume (m3)  125 32
•55% reduction in exposure to Work at Height
Total time (rig & de-rig) man days 120 50
•87% less contact points
Contact Points & Droppers 590 72
•Stronger
UDL Range  kN/m2 0.75-2.5 0.5-5.0
•2 x FoS
Factor of Safety (FoS) Typically 1.6:1 4:1 structural3:1 Deck
About these ads

About webrigging

A revolutionary new approach to access for fabric maintenance in offshore oil & gas, refinery jetties and railway bridges. Replace suspended scaffold with the WEB Deck. WEB Deck offers the same stability and other features as conventional and system scaffolding with a quarter of the install/de-install time. It delivers massive improvements in safety, logistics and operations.
This entry was posted in Bridge Access, Suspended Modular Platform - WEB Deck replacement for suspended scaffolding and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Suspended Scaffold vs WEB Deck: Under deck suspended platform systems compared

  1. Kev Callaghan says:

    As being a scaff i have to say scaffold better but have rope ticket and installed nets at mossmorran and worked well with them if used and installed correctly , infact whilst helping someguys work on them few years back one of guys collpsed with a fit although wasnt serious he never got hurt but with scaffold could and would have been diff story as we just pulled him of nets under pipework whereas if scaffold been there we would have had to lift him over all pipes which could have been dodgy so all in all i like them . K Callaghan .

  2. webrigging says:

    Thanks for your reply – it is great to get feedback from a scaffolder. I guess we always come from the point of view that different products provide best fit solutions to different work sites. The netting solution is a great lightweight access system perfect for the kind of work you were doing on site, but take a look at the WEB Deck as it has a hard deck and as such is like scaffold as a work platform. I would be interested to know what you think! There are posts on the blog and alot more on the website: http://www.webrsl.co.uk

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s